CWE-285
DiscouragedImproper Authorization
Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
2300 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-XV4R-4885-GWPG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-14 00:09 – Updated: 2026-07-14 00:09Summary
Kimai contains an authenticated improper authorization vulnerability in Team-related assignment APIs. A Teamlead who can edit their own team can use backend API endpoints to add users or activities that fall outside their intended visible or manageable scope, even when the frontend correctly hides those targets.
This affects both team member assignment and team activity assignment. The issue is caused by treating "may edit this team" as equivalent to "may attach any referenced object to this team", without performing a second authorization check on the target user or activity.
Details
The issue affects at least the following API routes:
POST /api/teams/{id}/members/{userId}POST /api/teams/{id}/activities/{activityId}
In both cases, the backend checks whether the caller may edit the Team, but it does not verify whether the referenced User or Activity falls inside the caller's allowed management scope.
For team member assignment, the frontend form correctly limits the visible user choices. In src/Form/TeamEditForm.php, the team edit form uses UserType:
$builder->add('users', UserType::class, [
'label' => 'add_user.label',
'help' => 'team.add_user.help',
'mapped' => false,
'multiple' => false,
'expanded' => false,
'required' => false,
'ignore_users' => $team !== null ? $team->getUsers() : []
]);
In src/Form/Type/UserType.php, the user selector is built from UserRepository::getQueryBuilderForFormType():
$query = new UserFormTypeQuery();
$query->setUser($options['user']);
$qb = $this->userRepository->getQueryBuilderForFormType($query);
$users = $qb->getQuery()->getResult();
And in src/Repository/UserRepository.php, Teamlead-visible candidates are limited to team members from teams they lead:
if (null !== $user && $user->isTeamlead()) {
$userIds = [];
foreach ($user->getTeams() as $team) {
if ($team->isTeamlead($user)) {
foreach ($team->getUsers() as $teamMember) {
$userIds[] = $teamMember->getId();
}
}
}
$userIds = array_unique($userIds);
$qb->setParameter('teamMember', $userIds);
$or->add($qb->expr()->in('u.id', ':teamMember'));
}
However, the actual member-assignment API does not reuse that restriction. In src/API/TeamController.php:
#[IsGranted('edit', 'team')]
#[Route(methods: ['POST'], path: '/{id}/members/{userId}', name: 'post_team_member', requirements: ['id' => '\d+', 'userId' => '\d+'])]
public function postMemberAction(Team $team, #[MapEntity(mapping: ['userId' => 'id'])] User $member): Response
{
if ($member->isInTeam($team)) {
throw new BadRequestHttpException('User is already member of the team');
}
$team->addUser($member);
$this->teamService->saveTeam($team);
}
For activity assignment, the same pattern appears. In src/API/TeamController.php:
#[IsGranted('edit', 'team')]
#[Route(methods: ['POST'], path: '/{id}/activities/{activityId}', name: 'post_team_activity', requirements: ['id' => '\d+', 'activityId' => '\d+'])]
public function postActivityAction(Team $team, #[MapEntity(mapping: ['activityId' => 'id'])] Activity $activity, ActivityRepository $activityRepository): Response
{
if ($team->hasActivity($activity)) {
throw new BadRequestHttpException('Team has already access to activity');
}
$team->addActivity($activity);
$activityRepository->saveActivity($activity);
}
The Team voter only checks whether the current user may edit that team, not whether the referenced object is within the Teamlead's legitimate scope. In src/Voter/TeamVoter.php:
if (!$user->isAdmin() && !$user->isSuperAdmin() && !$user->isTeamleadOf($subject)) {
return false;
}
return $this->permissionManager->hasRolePermission($user, $attribute . '_team');
For activities, this is especially risky because later authorization logic may trust the team assignment that was just written. In src/Security/RolePermissionManager.php:
public function checkTeamAccessActivity(Activity $activity, User $user): bool
{
if ($activity->getProject() !== null && !$this->checkTeamAccessProject($activity->getProject(), $user)) {
return false;
}
return $this->checkTeamAccess($activity->getTeams(), $user);
}
So once a Teamlead is able to write a new team/activity relation, later access-control decisions may treat that relation as legitimate input.
A PoC was provided, but removed for security reasons.
Impact
This vulnerability allows a Teamlead to use their own editable team as an expansion container for objects that should remain outside their authorized scope. In the validated member-assignment case, the attacker can forcibly add users who are not supposed to be manageable through that Teamlead's visible range. In the activity-assignment case, the attacker can attach activities that are outside the intended authorization boundary of the team.
Once such relations are written, downstream authorization, visibility, and business workflows may start treating them as legitimate. This can affect user scoping, team-based access control, customer/project/activity visibility, time-entry behavior, statistics, and reporting. The issue therefore breaks the trustworthiness of Team as a security isolation container.
Solution
Several new permission checks were added to src/API/TeamController.php -
- Check if user can be accessed with #[IsGranted('access_user', 'member')] before adding as new team member
- Check if customer can be seen with #[IsGranted('view', 'customer')] before a team is granted access to a customer
- Check if project can be seen with #[IsGranted('view', 'project')] before a team is granted access to a project
- Check if activity can be seen with #[IsGranted('view', 'activity')] before a team is granted access to an activity
See https://www.kimai.org/en/security/ghsa-xv4r-4885-gwpg for more information.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.57.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "kimai/kimai"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.58.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-52825"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-14T00:09:03Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nKimai contains an authenticated improper authorization vulnerability in Team-related assignment APIs. A Teamlead who can edit their own team can use backend API endpoints to add users or activities that fall outside their intended visible or manageable scope, even when the frontend correctly hides those targets.\n\nThis affects both team member assignment and team activity assignment. The issue is caused by treating \"may edit this team\" as equivalent to \"may attach any referenced object to this team\", without performing a second authorization check on the target user or activity.\n\n### Details\n\nThe issue affects at least the following API routes:\n\n- `POST /api/teams/{id}/members/{userId}`\n- `POST /api/teams/{id}/activities/{activityId}`\n\nIn both cases, the backend checks whether the caller may edit the `Team`, but it does not verify whether the referenced `User` or `Activity` falls inside the caller\u0027s allowed management scope.\n\nFor team member assignment, the frontend form correctly limits the visible user choices. In `src/Form/TeamEditForm.php`, the team edit form uses `UserType`:\n\n```php\n$builder-\u003eadd(\u0027users\u0027, UserType::class, [\n \u0027label\u0027 =\u003e \u0027add_user.label\u0027,\n \u0027help\u0027 =\u003e \u0027team.add_user.help\u0027,\n \u0027mapped\u0027 =\u003e false,\n \u0027multiple\u0027 =\u003e false,\n \u0027expanded\u0027 =\u003e false,\n \u0027required\u0027 =\u003e false,\n \u0027ignore_users\u0027 =\u003e $team !== null ? $team-\u003egetUsers() : []\n]);\n```\n\nIn `src/Form/Type/UserType.php`, the user selector is built from `UserRepository::getQueryBuilderForFormType()`:\n\n```php\n$query = new UserFormTypeQuery();\n$query-\u003esetUser($options[\u0027user\u0027]);\n\n$qb = $this-\u003euserRepository-\u003egetQueryBuilderForFormType($query);\n$users = $qb-\u003egetQuery()-\u003egetResult();\n```\n\nAnd in `src/Repository/UserRepository.php`, Teamlead-visible candidates are limited to team members from teams they lead:\n\n```php\nif (null !== $user \u0026\u0026 $user-\u003eisTeamlead()) {\n $userIds = [];\n foreach ($user-\u003egetTeams() as $team) {\n if ($team-\u003eisTeamlead($user)) {\n foreach ($team-\u003egetUsers() as $teamMember) {\n $userIds[] = $teamMember-\u003egetId();\n }\n }\n }\n $userIds = array_unique($userIds);\n $qb-\u003esetParameter(\u0027teamMember\u0027, $userIds);\n $or-\u003eadd($qb-\u003eexpr()-\u003ein(\u0027u.id\u0027, \u0027:teamMember\u0027));\n}\n```\n\nHowever, the actual member-assignment API does not reuse that restriction. In `src/API/TeamController.php`:\n\n```php\n#[IsGranted(\u0027edit\u0027, \u0027team\u0027)]\n#[Route(methods: [\u0027POST\u0027], path: \u0027/{id}/members/{userId}\u0027, name: \u0027post_team_member\u0027, requirements: [\u0027id\u0027 =\u003e \u0027\\d+\u0027, \u0027userId\u0027 =\u003e \u0027\\d+\u0027])]\npublic function postMemberAction(Team $team, #[MapEntity(mapping: [\u0027userId\u0027 =\u003e \u0027id\u0027])] User $member): Response\n{\n if ($member-\u003eisInTeam($team)) {\n throw new BadRequestHttpException(\u0027User is already member of the team\u0027);\n }\n\n $team-\u003eaddUser($member);\n $this-\u003eteamService-\u003esaveTeam($team);\n}\n```\n\nFor activity assignment, the same pattern appears. In `src/API/TeamController.php`:\n\n```php\n#[IsGranted(\u0027edit\u0027, \u0027team\u0027)]\n#[Route(methods: [\u0027POST\u0027], path: \u0027/{id}/activities/{activityId}\u0027, name: \u0027post_team_activity\u0027, requirements: [\u0027id\u0027 =\u003e \u0027\\d+\u0027, \u0027activityId\u0027 =\u003e \u0027\\d+\u0027])]\npublic function postActivityAction(Team $team, #[MapEntity(mapping: [\u0027activityId\u0027 =\u003e \u0027id\u0027])] Activity $activity, ActivityRepository $activityRepository): Response\n{\n if ($team-\u003ehasActivity($activity)) {\n throw new BadRequestHttpException(\u0027Team has already access to activity\u0027);\n }\n\n $team-\u003eaddActivity($activity);\n $activityRepository-\u003esaveActivity($activity);\n}\n```\n\nThe `Team` voter only checks whether the current user may edit that team, not whether the referenced object is within the Teamlead\u0027s legitimate scope. In `src/Voter/TeamVoter.php`:\n\n```php\nif (!$user-\u003eisAdmin() \u0026\u0026 !$user-\u003eisSuperAdmin() \u0026\u0026 !$user-\u003eisTeamleadOf($subject)) {\n return false;\n}\n\nreturn $this-\u003epermissionManager-\u003ehasRolePermission($user, $attribute . \u0027_team\u0027);\n```\n\nFor activities, this is especially risky because later authorization logic may trust the team assignment that was just written. In `src/Security/RolePermissionManager.php`:\n\n```php\npublic function checkTeamAccessActivity(Activity $activity, User $user): bool\n{\n if ($activity-\u003egetProject() !== null \u0026\u0026 !$this-\u003echeckTeamAccessProject($activity-\u003egetProject(), $user)) {\n return false;\n }\n\n return $this-\u003echeckTeamAccess($activity-\u003egetTeams(), $user);\n}\n```\n\nSo once a Teamlead is able to write a new team/activity relation, later access-control decisions may treat that relation as legitimate input.\n\n*A PoC was provided, but removed for security reasons.*\n\n### Impact\n\nThis vulnerability allows a Teamlead to use their own editable team as an expansion container for objects that should remain outside their authorized scope. In the validated member-assignment case, the attacker can forcibly add users who are not supposed to be manageable through that Teamlead\u0027s visible range. In the activity-assignment case, the attacker can attach activities that are outside the intended authorization boundary of the team.\n\nOnce such relations are written, downstream authorization, visibility, and business workflows may start treating them as legitimate. This can affect user scoping, team-based access control, customer/project/activity visibility, time-entry behavior, statistics, and reporting. The issue therefore breaks the trustworthiness of `Team` as a security isolation container.\n\n# Solution\n\nSeveral new permission checks were added to `src/API/TeamController.php` -\n- Check if user can be accessed with `#[IsGranted(\u0027access_user\u0027, \u0027member\u0027)]` before adding as new team member \n- Check if customer can be seen with `#[IsGranted(\u0027view\u0027, \u0027customer\u0027)]` before a team is granted access to a customer\n- Check if project can be seen with `#[IsGranted(\u0027view\u0027, \u0027project\u0027)]` before a team is granted access to a project\n- Check if activity can be seen with `#[IsGranted(\u0027view\u0027, \u0027activity\u0027)]` before a team is granted access to an activity\n\nSee [https://www.kimai.org/en/security/ghsa-xv4r-4885-gwpg](https://www.kimai.org/en/security/ghsa-xv4r-4885-gwpg) for more information.",
"id": "GHSA-xv4r-4885-gwpg",
"modified": "2026-07-14T00:09:03Z",
"published": "2026-07-14T00:09:03Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kimai/kimai/security/advisories/GHSA-xv4r-4885-gwpg"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/kimai/kimai"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Kimai has Improper Authorization in Team Member and Team Activity Assignment APIs Which Allows Expansion of Team Scope Beyond Authorized Visibility"
}
GHSA-XVVF-5VW8-WW5F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:52 – Updated: 2024-04-04 01:29bin/csvprocess in cPanel before 68.0.27 allows insecure file operations (SEC-354).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-20945"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-08-01T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "bin/csvprocess in cPanel before 68.0.27 allows insecure file operations (SEC-354).",
"id": "GHSA-xvvf-5vw8-ww5f",
"modified": "2024-04-04T01:29:25Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:52:10Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-20945"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://documentation.cpanel.net/display/CL/68+Change+Log"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-XW4G-GMMJ-5G3M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-09 21:31 – Updated: 2025-01-10 18:31Improper Authorization vulnerability in Drupal Open Social allows Collect Data from Common Resource Locations.This issue affects Open Social: from 0.0.0 before 12.0.5.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-13241"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-09T19:15:17Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Improper Authorization vulnerability in Drupal Open Social allows Collect Data from Common Resource Locations.This issue affects Open Social: from 0.0.0 before 12.0.5.",
"id": "GHSA-xw4g-gmmj-5g3m",
"modified": "2025-01-10T18:31:39Z",
"published": "2025-01-09T21:31:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-13241"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.drupal.org/sa-contrib-2024-005"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-XW77-45GV-P728
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-13 15:47 – Updated: 2026-04-06 22:49Summary
In affected versions of openclaw, the plugin subagent runtime dispatched gateway methods through a synthetic operator client that always carried broad administrative scopes. Plugin-owned HTTP routes using auth: "plugin" could therefore trigger admin-only gateway actions without normal gateway authorization.
Impact
This is a critical authorization bypass. An external unauthenticated request to a plugin-owned route could reach privileged subagent runtime methods and perform admin-only gateway actions such as deleting sessions, reading session data, or triggering agent execution.
Affected Packages and Versions
- Package:
openclaw(npm) - Affected versions:
>= 2026.3.7, < 2026.3.11 - Fixed in:
2026.3.11
Technical Details
The new plugin subagent runtime preserved neither the original caller's auth context nor least-privilege scope. Instead, it executed gateway dispatches through a fabricated operator client with administrative scopes, which was reachable from plugin-owned routes that intentionally bypass normal gateway auth so plugins can perform their own webhook verification.
Fix
OpenClaw now preserves real authorization boundaries for plugin subagent calls instead of dispatching them through synthetic admin scopes. The fix shipped in openclaw@2026.3.11.
Workarounds
Upgrade to 2026.3.11 or later.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "openclaw"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2026.3.7"
},
{
"fixed": "2026.3.11"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-32916"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-269",
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-13T15:47:23Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "## Summary\nIn affected versions of `openclaw`, the plugin subagent runtime dispatched gateway methods through a synthetic operator client that always carried broad administrative scopes. Plugin-owned HTTP routes using `auth: \"plugin\"` could therefore trigger admin-only gateway actions without normal gateway authorization.\n\n## Impact\nThis is a critical authorization bypass. An external unauthenticated request to a plugin-owned route could reach privileged subagent runtime methods and perform admin-only gateway actions such as deleting sessions, reading session data, or triggering agent execution.\n\n## Affected Packages and Versions\n- Package: `openclaw` (npm)\n- Affected versions: `\u003e= 2026.3.7, \u003c 2026.3.11`\n- Fixed in: `2026.3.11`\n\n## Technical Details\nThe new plugin subagent runtime preserved neither the original caller\u0027s auth context nor least-privilege scope. Instead, it executed gateway dispatches through a fabricated operator client with administrative scopes, which was reachable from plugin-owned routes that intentionally bypass normal gateway auth so plugins can perform their own webhook verification.\n\n## Fix\nOpenClaw now preserves real authorization boundaries for plugin subagent calls instead of dispatching them through synthetic admin scopes. The fix shipped in `openclaw@2026.3.11`.\n\n## Workarounds\nUpgrade to `2026.3.11` or later.",
"id": "GHSA-xw77-45gv-p728",
"modified": "2026-04-06T22:49:26Z",
"published": "2026-03-13T15:47:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-xw77-45gv-p728"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-32916"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/releases/tag/v2026.3.11"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-authorization-bypass-in-plugin-subagent-routes-via-synthetic-admin-scopes"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "OpenClaw: Plugin subagent routes could bypass gateway authorization with synthetic admin scopes"
}
GHSA-XW7M-49QM-2X39
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-14 18:32 – Updated: 2025-01-14 18:32Windows App Package Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-21275"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-14T18:15:47Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Windows App Package Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability",
"id": "GHSA-xw7m-49qm-2x39",
"modified": "2025-01-14T18:32:03Z",
"published": "2025-01-14T18:32:03Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-21275"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2025-21275"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-XWPR-W932-M4PX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-07-15 21:31 – Updated: 2025-07-15 21:31Vulnerability in the Oracle WebLogic Server product of Oracle Fusion Middleware (component: Web Container). Supported versions that are affected are 12.2.1.4.0, 14.1.1.0.0 and 14.1.2.0.0. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise Oracle WebLogic Server. Successful attacks require human interaction from a person other than the attacker and while the vulnerability is in Oracle WebLogic Server, attacks may significantly impact additional products (scope change). Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized update, insert or delete access to some of Oracle WebLogic Server accessible data as well as unauthorized read access to a subset of Oracle WebLogic Server accessible data. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 6.1 (Confidentiality and Integrity impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-50073"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-07-15T20:15:43Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Vulnerability in the Oracle WebLogic Server product of Oracle Fusion Middleware (component: Web Container). Supported versions that are affected are 12.2.1.4.0, 14.1.1.0.0 and 14.1.2.0.0. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise Oracle WebLogic Server. Successful attacks require human interaction from a person other than the attacker and while the vulnerability is in Oracle WebLogic Server, attacks may significantly impact additional products (scope change). Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized update, insert or delete access to some of Oracle WebLogic Server accessible data as well as unauthorized read access to a subset of Oracle WebLogic Server accessible data. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 6.1 (Confidentiality and Integrity impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N).",
"id": "GHSA-xwpr-w932-m4px",
"modified": "2025-07-15T21:31:40Z",
"published": "2025-07-15T21:31:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-50073"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpujul2025.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-XWVJ-C6CJ-6XGW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-27 09:40 – Updated: 2024-11-27 09:40An authenticated user with API access (e.g.: user with default User role), more specifically a user with access to the user.update API endpoint is enough to be able to add themselves to any group (e.g.: Zabbix Administrators), except to groups that are disabled or having restricted GUI access.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-36467"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-27T07:15:09Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An authenticated user with API access (e.g.: user with default User role), more specifically a user with access to the user.update API endpoint is enough to be able to add themselves to any group (e.g.: Zabbix Administrators), except to groups that are disabled or having restricted GUI access.",
"id": "GHSA-xwvj-c6cj-6xgw",
"modified": "2024-11-27T09:40:23Z",
"published": "2024-11-27T09:40:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-36467"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.zabbix.com/browse/ZBX-25614"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-XX6M-FQM7-6GHV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:02 – Updated: 2022-07-31 00:00Low privileged users can use the AJAX action 'cp_plugins_do_button_job_later_callback' in the Login as User or Customer (User Switching) WordPress plugin before 1.8, to install any plugin (including a specific version) from the WordPress repository, as well as activate arbitrary plugin from then blog, which helps attackers install vulnerable plugins and could lead to more critical vulnerabilities like RCE.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-24195"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-05-14T12:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Low privileged users can use the AJAX action \u0027cp_plugins_do_button_job_later_callback\u0027 in the Login as User or Customer (User Switching) WordPress plugin before 1.8, to install any plugin (including a specific version) from the WordPress repository, as well as activate arbitrary plugin from then blog, which helps attackers install vulnerable plugins and could lead to more critical vulnerabilities like RCE.",
"id": "GHSA-xx6m-fqm7-6ghv",
"modified": "2022-07-31T00:00:58Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:02:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-24195"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/74889e29-5349-43d1-baf5-1622493be90c"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-XX9W-464F-7H6F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-16 20:27 – Updated: 2024-11-19 16:25Impact
Harbor fails to validate the user permissions when updating a robot account that belongs to a project that the authenticated user doesn’t have access to. API call:
PUT /robots/{robot_id}
By sending a request that attempts to update a robot account, and specifying a robot account id and robot account name that belongs to a different project that the user doesn’t have access to, it was possible to revoke the robot account permissions.
Patches
This and similar issues are fixed in Harbor v2.5.2 and later. Please upgrade as soon as possible.
Workarounds
There are no workarounds available.
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: * Open an issue in the Harbor GitHub repository
Credits
Thanks to Gal Goldstein and Daniel Abeles from Oxeye Security for reporting this issue.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.10.12"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/goharbor/harbor"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.10.13"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.4.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/goharbor/harbor"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.4.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.5.1"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/goharbor/harbor"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.5.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.5.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-31667"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-09-16T20:27:13Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-14T12:15:16Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\nHarbor fails to validate the user permissions when updating a robot account that\nbelongs to a project that the authenticated user doesn\u2019t have access to. API call:\n\nPUT /robots/{robot_id}\n\nBy sending a request that attempts to update a robot account, and specifying a robot\naccount id and robot account name that belongs to a different project that the user\ndoesn\u2019t have access to, it was possible to revoke the robot account permissions.\n\n### Patches\nThis and similar issues are fixed in Harbor v2.5.2 and later. Please upgrade as soon as possible.\n\n### Workarounds\nThere are no workarounds available.\n\n### For more information\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\n* Open an issue in [the Harbor GitHub repository](https://github.com/goharbor/harbor)\n\n### Credits\nThanks to [Gal Goldstein](https://www.linkedin.com/in/gal-goldshtein/) and [Daniel Abeles](https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniel-abeles/) from [Oxeye Security](https://www.oxeye.io/) for reporting this issue.\n",
"id": "GHSA-xx9w-464f-7h6f",
"modified": "2024-11-19T16:25:22Z",
"published": "2022-09-16T20:27:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/security/advisories/GHSA-xx9w-464f-7h6f"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-31667"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/goharbor/harbor"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": " Harbor fails to validate the user permissions when updating a robot account"
}
GHSA-XXMC-MJXM-2M5R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-06 19:24 – Updated: 2024-04-04 05:32A CWE-285: Improper Authorization vulnerability exists that could cause Denial of Service against the Geo SCADA server when specific messages are sent to the server over the database server TCP port. Affected Products: EcoStruxure™ Geo SCADA Expert 2019, EcoStruxure™ Geo SCADA Expert 2020, EcoStruxure™ Geo SCADA Expert 2021 (All versions prior to October 2022), ClearSCADA (All Versions).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-22610"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-01-31T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A CWE-285: Improper Authorization vulnerability exists that could cause Denial of Service against the Geo SCADA server when specific messages are sent to the server over the database server TCP port. Affected Products: EcoStruxure\u2122 Geo SCADA Expert 2019, EcoStruxure\u2122 Geo SCADA Expert 2020, EcoStruxure\u2122 Geo SCADA Expert 2021 (All versions prior to October 2022), ClearSCADA (All Versions).",
"id": "GHSA-xxmc-mjxm-2m5r",
"modified": "2024-04-04T05:32:13Z",
"published": "2023-07-06T19:24:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-22610"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://download.schneider-electric.com/files?p_Doc_Ref=SEVD-2023-010-02\u0026p_enDocType=Security+and+Safety+Notice\u0026p_File_Name=SEVD-2023-010-02_Geo_SCADA_Security_Notification.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.se.com/ww/en/download/document/SEVD-2023-010-02"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation
- Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
- Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
Mitigation
Ensure that you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor.
Mitigation MIT-4.4
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
- For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
Mitigation
- For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page.
- One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
Mitigation
Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.
CAPEC-1: Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs
In applications, particularly web applications, access to functionality is mitigated by an authorization framework. This framework maps Access Control Lists (ACLs) to elements of the application's functionality; particularly URL's for web apps. In the case that the administrator failed to specify an ACL for a particular element, an attacker may be able to access it with impunity. An attacker with the ability to access functionality not properly constrained by ACLs can obtain sensitive information and possibly compromise the entire application. Such an attacker can access resources that must be available only to users at a higher privilege level, can access management sections of the application, or can run queries for data that they otherwise not supposed to.
CAPEC-104: Cross Zone Scripting
An attacker is able to cause a victim to load content into their web-browser that bypasses security zone controls and gain access to increased privileges to execute scripting code or other web objects such as unsigned ActiveX controls or applets. This is a privilege elevation attack targeted at zone-based web-browser security.
CAPEC-127: Directory Indexing
An adversary crafts a request to a target that results in the target listing/indexing the content of a directory as output. One common method of triggering directory contents as output is to construct a request containing a path that terminates in a directory name rather than a file name since many applications are configured to provide a list of the directory's contents when such a request is received. An adversary can use this to explore the directory tree on a target as well as learn the names of files. This can often end up revealing test files, backup files, temporary files, hidden files, configuration files, user accounts, script contents, as well as naming conventions, all of which can be used by an attacker to mount additional attacks.
CAPEC-13: Subverting Environment Variable Values
The adversary directly or indirectly modifies environment variables used by or controlling the target software. The adversary's goal is to cause the target software to deviate from its expected operation in a manner that benefits the adversary.
CAPEC-17: Using Malicious Files
An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an adversary to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an adversary to upload a file and then execute it. Web servers, ftp servers, and message oriented middleware systems which have many integration points are particularly vulnerable, because both the programmers and the administrators must be in synch regarding the interfaces and the correct privileges for each interface.
CAPEC-39: Manipulating Opaque Client-based Data Tokens
In circumstances where an application holds important data client-side in tokens (cookies, URLs, data files, and so forth) that data can be manipulated. If client or server-side application components reinterpret that data as authentication tokens or data (such as store item pricing or wallet information) then even opaquely manipulating that data may bear fruit for an Attacker. In this pattern an attacker undermines the assumption that client side tokens have been adequately protected from tampering through use of encryption or obfuscation.
CAPEC-402: Bypassing ATA Password Security
An adversary exploits a weakness in ATA security on a drive to gain access to the information the drive contains without supplying the proper credentials. ATA Security is often employed to protect hard disk information from unauthorized access. The mechanism requires the user to type in a password before the BIOS is allowed access to drive contents. Some implementations of ATA security will accept the ATA command to update the password without the user having authenticated with the BIOS. This occurs because the security mechanism assumes the user has first authenticated via the BIOS prior to sending commands to the drive. Various methods exist for exploiting this flaw, the most common being installing the ATA protected drive into a system lacking ATA security features (a.k.a. hot swapping). Once the drive is installed into the new system the BIOS can be used to reset the drive password.
CAPEC-45: Buffer Overflow via Symbolic Links
This type of attack leverages the use of symbolic links to cause buffer overflows. An adversary can try to create or manipulate a symbolic link file such that its contents result in out of bounds data. When the target software processes the symbolic link file, it could potentially overflow internal buffers with insufficient bounds checking.
CAPEC-5: Blue Boxing
This type of attack against older telephone switches and trunks has been around for decades. A tone is sent by an adversary to impersonate a supervisor signal which has the effect of rerouting or usurping command of the line. While the US infrastructure proper may not contain widespread vulnerabilities to this type of attack, many companies are connected globally through call centers and business process outsourcing. These international systems may be operated in countries which have not upgraded Telco infrastructure and so are vulnerable to Blue boxing. Blue boxing is a result of failure on the part of the system to enforce strong authorization for administrative functions. While the infrastructure is different than standard current applications like web applications, there are historical lessons to be learned to upgrade the access control for administrative functions.
{'xhtml:b': 'This attack pattern is included in CAPEC for historical purposes.'}
CAPEC-51: Poison Web Service Registry
SOA and Web Services often use a registry to perform look up, get schema information, and metadata about services. A poisoned registry can redirect (think phishing for servers) the service requester to a malicious service provider, provide incorrect information in schema or metadata, and delete information about service provider interfaces.
CAPEC-59: Session Credential Falsification through Prediction
This attack targets predictable session ID in order to gain privileges. The attacker can predict the session ID used during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking.
CAPEC-60: Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay)
This attack targets the reuse of valid session ID to spoof the target system in order to gain privileges. The attacker tries to reuse a stolen session ID used previously during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking. Another name for this type of attack is Session Replay.
CAPEC-647: Collect Data from Registries
An adversary exploits a weakness in authorization to gather system-specific data and sensitive information within a registry (e.g., Windows Registry, Mac plist). These contain information about the system configuration, software, operating system, and security. The adversary can leverage information gathered in order to carry out further attacks.
CAPEC-668: Key Negotiation of Bluetooth Attack (KNOB)
An adversary can exploit a flaw in Bluetooth key negotiation allowing them to decrypt information sent between two devices communicating via Bluetooth. The adversary uses an Adversary in the Middle setup to modify packets sent between the two devices during the authentication process, specifically the entropy bits. Knowledge of the number of entropy bits will allow the attacker to easily decrypt information passing over the line of communication.
CAPEC-76: Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls
An attacker manipulates inputs to the target software which the target software passes to file system calls in the OS. The goal is to gain access to, and perhaps modify, areas of the file system that the target software did not intend to be accessible.
CAPEC-77: Manipulating User-Controlled Variables
This attack targets user controlled variables (DEBUG=1, PHP Globals, and So Forth). An adversary can override variables leveraging user-supplied, untrusted query variables directly used on the application server without any data sanitization. In extreme cases, the adversary can change variables controlling the business logic of the application. For instance, in languages like PHP, a number of poorly set default configurations may allow the user to override variables.
CAPEC-87: Forceful Browsing
An attacker employs forceful browsing (direct URL entry) to access portions of a website that are otherwise unreachable. Usually, a front controller or similar design pattern is employed to protect access to portions of a web application. Forceful browsing enables an attacker to access information, perform privileged operations and otherwise reach sections of the web application that have been improperly protected.