CWE-306
AllowedMissing Authentication for Critical Function
Abstraction: Base · Status: Draft
The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.
3634 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-7HGR-7H44-33W2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-19 20:13 – Updated: 2026-05-19 20:13Unauthenticated HTTP MCP browser-control surface in camofox-mcp
Summary
camofox-mcp exposed a Streamable HTTP MCP endpoint at /mcp with rate limiting but no inbound MCP-layer authentication. When HTTP mode was enabled, any client that could reach /mcp could list and invoke browser-control tools.
If CAMOFOX_API_KEY was configured, the server then forwarded that server-side key to the underlying camofox-browser backend. That means an unauthenticated MCP caller could exercise the server's browser authority without knowing the backend browser API key.
Reviewed vulnerable commit: 10e3ac08cb50d830eb4ee00a789229f02f28a1a4
Fixed commit observed on main: 599f56ee40f8062aeca541c251ed1d39fb437f50
Fixed release observed: v1.13.2
Suggested severity: High, with the caveat that default loopback-only deployments reduce practical exposure.
Root cause
In the reviewed commit, src/http.ts creates the Express MCP app and applies only a rate limiter to /mcp:
const app = createMcpExpressApp({ host: config.httpHost });
const limiter = rateLimit({
windowMs: 60_000,
limit: config.httpRateLimit,
standardHeaders: true,
legacyHeaders: false
});
app.use("/mcp", limiter);
The POST /mcp handler then creates a server and StreamableHTTPServerTransport and passes the request body into the MCP transport without checking Authorization, an inbound API key, allowed hosts, or public-bind safety:
app.post("/mcp", async (req: any, res: any) => {
try {
const { server } = createServer(config);
const transport = new StreamableHTTPServerTransport({ sessionIdGenerator: undefined });
await server.connect(transport);
await transport.handleRequest(req, res, req.body);
src/config.ts made HTTP mode configurable and defaulted the HTTP host to loopback, but it did not require an inbound HTTP client secret:
transport: cli.transport ?? envTransport ?? "stdio",
httpPort: cli.httpPort ?? (Number.isNaN(httpPortFromEnv) ? 3000 : httpPortFromEnv),
httpHost: cli.httpHost ?? env.CAMOFOX_HTTP_HOST ?? "127.0.0.1",
Separately, src/client.ts forwarded CAMOFOX_API_KEY server-side to the browser backend:
if (this.apiKey) {
headers.set("x-api-key", this.apiKey);
headers.set("authorization", `Bearer ${this.apiKey}`);
}
So CAMOFOX_API_KEY protected the MCP server's outbound requests to the backend browser service, but did not authenticate inbound HTTP MCP clients.
Auth boundary
The vulnerable boundary was the HTTP MCP endpoint. The client did not need to provide Authorization or any CAMOFOX_API_KEY value to call MCP tools.
The default bind was 127.0.0.1, which lowers severity for default local-only deployments. The risky cases are documented HTTP/remote-client deployments, Docker/port-forwarded deployments, or any environment where a browser page, local network client, reverse proxy, or another user can reach the /mcp endpoint.
Proof of concept
I used a fake camofox-browser backend so no real browser was launched and no external navigation occurred. The harness starts the reviewed dist/http.js server with CAMOFOX_API_KEY=server-side-secret, connects an MCP SDK client to /mcp with no auth headers, lists tools, then calls create_tab and navigate.
Observed output:
{
"authUsedByClient": false,
"listedToolCount": 46,
"backendRequests": [
{
"method": "POST",
"url": "/tabs",
"headers": {
"authorization": "Bearer server-side-secret",
"x-api-key": "server-side-secret"
}
},
{
"method": "POST",
"url": "/tabs/fake-tab-1/navigate",
"headers": {
"authorization": "Bearer server-side-secret",
"x-api-key": "server-side-secret"
}
}
],
"observedUnauthenticatedBrowserControl": true,
"serverSideSecretForwardedToBackend": true
}
This demonstrates both parts of the issue:
- The MCP client used no inbound authentication.
- The server still used its configured backend browser secret when forwarding the tool calls.
Impact
An unauthenticated client that can reach the HTTP MCP endpoint can exercise browser-control tools as the MCP server. Depending on the user's active browser profiles and configured backend, that can allow page navigation, tab creation, interaction with authenticated browser contexts, screenshot/content observation, and other browser-automation actions exposed by the MCP tool surface.
The impact is strongest when HTTP mode is intentionally exposed for remote MCP clients or through Docker/reverse-proxy deployment and the operator assumes CAMOFOX_API_KEY protects the whole control plane.
Fix notes
The public issue indicates this has been fixed in 599f56e and released as v1.13.2 by adding dedicated inbound CAMOFOX_HTTP_API_KEY Bearer auth, public-bind startup validation, auth before /mcp JSON parsing, loopback Host-header protection, and optional allowed-hosts handling. Those are the right mitigation directions.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "camofox-mcp"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.13.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-306"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-19T20:13:35Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "# Unauthenticated HTTP MCP browser-control surface in `camofox-mcp`\n\n## Summary\n\n`camofox-mcp` exposed a Streamable HTTP MCP endpoint at `/mcp` with rate limiting but no inbound MCP-layer authentication. When HTTP mode was enabled, any client that could reach `/mcp` could list and invoke browser-control tools.\n\nIf `CAMOFOX_API_KEY` was configured, the server then forwarded that server-side key to the underlying `camofox-browser` backend. That means an unauthenticated MCP caller could exercise the server\u0027s browser authority without knowing the backend browser API key.\n\nReviewed vulnerable commit: `10e3ac08cb50d830eb4ee00a789229f02f28a1a4`\nFixed commit observed on main: `599f56ee40f8062aeca541c251ed1d39fb437f50`\nFixed release observed: `v1.13.2`\nSuggested severity: High, with the caveat that default loopback-only deployments reduce practical exposure.\n\n## Root cause\n\nIn the reviewed commit, `src/http.ts` creates the Express MCP app and applies only a rate limiter to `/mcp`:\n\n```ts\nconst app = createMcpExpressApp({ host: config.httpHost });\n\nconst limiter = rateLimit({\n windowMs: 60_000,\n limit: config.httpRateLimit,\n standardHeaders: true,\n legacyHeaders: false\n});\n\napp.use(\"/mcp\", limiter);\n```\n\nThe `POST /mcp` handler then creates a server and `StreamableHTTPServerTransport` and passes the request body into the MCP transport without checking `Authorization`, an inbound API key, allowed hosts, or public-bind safety:\n\n```ts\napp.post(\"/mcp\", async (req: any, res: any) =\u003e {\n try {\n const { server } = createServer(config);\n const transport = new StreamableHTTPServerTransport({ sessionIdGenerator: undefined });\n\n await server.connect(transport);\n await transport.handleRequest(req, res, req.body);\n```\n\n`src/config.ts` made HTTP mode configurable and defaulted the HTTP host to loopback, but it did not require an inbound HTTP client secret:\n\n```ts\ntransport: cli.transport ?? envTransport ?? \"stdio\",\nhttpPort: cli.httpPort ?? (Number.isNaN(httpPortFromEnv) ? 3000 : httpPortFromEnv),\nhttpHost: cli.httpHost ?? env.CAMOFOX_HTTP_HOST ?? \"127.0.0.1\",\n```\n\nSeparately, `src/client.ts` forwarded `CAMOFOX_API_KEY` server-side to the browser backend:\n\n```ts\nif (this.apiKey) {\n headers.set(\"x-api-key\", this.apiKey);\n headers.set(\"authorization\", `Bearer ${this.apiKey}`);\n}\n```\n\nSo `CAMOFOX_API_KEY` protected the MCP server\u0027s outbound requests to the backend browser service, but did not authenticate inbound HTTP MCP clients.\n\n## Auth boundary\n\nThe vulnerable boundary was the HTTP MCP endpoint. The client did not need to provide `Authorization` or any `CAMOFOX_API_KEY` value to call MCP tools.\n\nThe default bind was `127.0.0.1`, which lowers severity for default local-only deployments. The risky cases are documented HTTP/remote-client deployments, Docker/port-forwarded deployments, or any environment where a browser page, local network client, reverse proxy, or another user can reach the `/mcp` endpoint.\n\n## Proof of concept\n\nI used a fake `camofox-browser` backend so no real browser was launched and no external navigation occurred. The harness starts the reviewed `dist/http.js` server with `CAMOFOX_API_KEY=server-side-secret`, connects an MCP SDK client to `/mcp` with no auth headers, lists tools, then calls `create_tab` and `navigate`.\n\nObserved output:\n\n```json\n{\n \"authUsedByClient\": false,\n \"listedToolCount\": 46,\n \"backendRequests\": [\n {\n \"method\": \"POST\",\n \"url\": \"/tabs\",\n \"headers\": {\n \"authorization\": \"Bearer server-side-secret\",\n \"x-api-key\": \"server-side-secret\"\n }\n },\n {\n \"method\": \"POST\",\n \"url\": \"/tabs/fake-tab-1/navigate\",\n \"headers\": {\n \"authorization\": \"Bearer server-side-secret\",\n \"x-api-key\": \"server-side-secret\"\n }\n }\n ],\n \"observedUnauthenticatedBrowserControl\": true,\n \"serverSideSecretForwardedToBackend\": true\n}\n```\n\nThis demonstrates both parts of the issue:\n\n1. The MCP client used no inbound authentication.\n2. The server still used its configured backend browser secret when forwarding the tool calls.\n\n## Impact\n\nAn unauthenticated client that can reach the HTTP MCP endpoint can exercise browser-control tools as the MCP server. Depending on the user\u0027s active browser profiles and configured backend, that can allow page navigation, tab creation, interaction with authenticated browser contexts, screenshot/content observation, and other browser-automation actions exposed by the MCP tool surface.\n\nThe impact is strongest when HTTP mode is intentionally exposed for remote MCP clients or through Docker/reverse-proxy deployment and the operator assumes `CAMOFOX_API_KEY` protects the whole control plane.\n\n## Fix notes\n\nThe public issue indicates this has been fixed in `599f56e` and released as `v1.13.2` by adding dedicated inbound `CAMOFOX_HTTP_API_KEY` Bearer auth, public-bind startup validation, auth before `/mcp` JSON parsing, loopback Host-header protection, and optional allowed-hosts handling. Those are the right mitigation directions.",
"id": "GHSA-7hgr-7h44-33w2",
"modified": "2026-05-19T20:13:35Z",
"published": "2026-05-19T20:13:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/redf0x1/camofox-mcp/security/advisories/GHSA-7hgr-7h44-33w2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/redf0x1/camofox-mcp/commit/599f56ee40f8062aeca541c251ed1d39fb437f50"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/redf0x1/camofox-mcp"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:L",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "CamoFox MCP: Unauthenticated HTTP MCP browser-control surface"
}
GHSA-7HHJ-936P-M562
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-29 00:00 – Updated: 2022-09-29 00:00In Carlo Gavazzi UWP3.0 in multiple versions and CPY Car Park Server in Version 2.8.3 a missing authentication allows for full access via API.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-22526"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-306"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-09-28T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "In Carlo Gavazzi UWP3.0 in multiple versions and CPY Car Park Server in Version 2.8.3 a missing authentication allows for full access via API.",
"id": "GHSA-7hhj-936p-m562",
"modified": "2022-09-29T00:00:25Z",
"published": "2022-09-29T00:00:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-22526"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert.vde.com/en/advisories/VDE-2022-029"
}
],
"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:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7J8G-5MR3-5J66
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:44 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:44Weak access controls in the Device Logout functionality on the TP-Link TL-SG108E v1.0.0 allow remote attackers to call the logout functionality, triggering a denial of service condition.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-17747"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-306"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-12-20T20:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Weak access controls in the Device Logout functionality on the TP-Link TL-SG108E v1.0.0 allow remote attackers to call the logout functionality, triggering a denial of service condition.",
"id": "GHSA-7j8g-5mr3-5j66",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:44:29Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:44:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-17747"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2017/Dec/67"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7JGQ-6QW7-J88F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-05-14 18:30 – Updated: 2024-07-03 18:40An issue was discovered on certain Nuki Home Solutions devices. An attacker with physical access to this JTAG port may be able to connect to the device and bypass both hardware and software security protections. This affects Nuki Keypad before 1.9.2 and Nuki Fob before 1.8.1.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-32503"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-288",
"CWE-306"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-05-14T10:43:41Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered on certain Nuki Home Solutions devices. An attacker with physical access to this JTAG port may be able to connect to the device and bypass both hardware and software security protections. This affects Nuki Keypad before 1.9.2 and Nuki Fob before 1.8.1.",
"id": "GHSA-7jgq-6qw7-j88f",
"modified": "2024-07-03T18:40:03Z",
"published": "2024-05-14T18:30:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-32503"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://latesthackingnews.com/2022/07/28/multiple-security-flaws-found-in-nuki-smart-locks"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://nuki.io/en/security-updates"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://research.nccgroup.com/2022/07/25/technical-advisory-multiple-vulnerabilities-in-nuki-smart-locks-cve-2022-32509-cve-2022-32504-cve-2022-32502-cve-2022-32507-cve-2022-32503-cve-2022-32510-cve-2022-32506-cve-2022-32508-cve-2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.hackread.com/nuki-smart-locks-vulnerabilities-plethora-attack-options"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7JHG-5V84-7GQC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-12-27 18:30 – Updated: 2023-01-05 06:30Some Dahua software products have a vulnerability of unauthenticated request of AES crypto key. An attacker can obtain the AES crypto key by sending a specific crafted packet to the vulnerable interface.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-45424"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-306",
"CWE-522"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-12-27T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Some Dahua software products have a vulnerability of unauthenticated request of AES crypto key. An attacker can obtain the AES crypto key by sending a specific crafted packet to the vulnerable interface.",
"id": "GHSA-7jhg-5v84-7gqc",
"modified": "2023-01-05T06:30:23Z",
"published": "2022-12-27T18:30:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-45424"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.dahuasecurity.com/support/cybersecurity/details/1137"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7JJ4-VC4F-6GQ7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-10 21:31 – Updated: 2025-12-17 21:30Eibiz i-Media Server Digital Signage 3.8.0 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to create admin users through AMF-encoded object manipulation. Attackers can send crafted serialized objects to the /messagebroker/amf endpoint to create administrative users without authentication, bypassing security controls.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-36894"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-306"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-10T21:16:01Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Eibiz i-Media Server Digital Signage 3.8.0 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to create admin users through AMF-encoded object manipulation. Attackers can send crafted serialized objects to the /messagebroker/amf endpoint to create administrative users without authentication, bypassing security controls.",
"id": "GHSA-7jj4-vc4f-6gq7",
"modified": "2025-12-17T21:30:41Z",
"published": "2025-12-10T21:31:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-36894"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/48763"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/eibiz-i-media-server-digital-signage-unauthenticated-user-creation-vulnerability"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zeroscience.mk/en/vulnerabilities/ZSL-2020-5586.php"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.eibiz.co.th"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-7JMW-W738-JM9H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-17 18:35 – Updated: 2026-06-17 18:35Vulnerability in the PeopleSoft Enterprise PT PeopleTools product of Oracle PeopleSoft (component: Deployment Package). Supported versions that are affected are 8.61 and 8.62. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via HTTPS to compromise PeopleSoft Enterprise PT PeopleTools. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in takeover of PeopleSoft Enterprise PT PeopleTools. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 8.1 (Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-35289"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-306"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-17T10:40:21Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Vulnerability in the PeopleSoft Enterprise PT PeopleTools product of Oracle PeopleSoft (component: Deployment Package). Supported versions that are affected are 8.61 and 8.62. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via HTTPS to compromise PeopleSoft Enterprise PT PeopleTools. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in takeover of PeopleSoft Enterprise PT PeopleTools. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 8.1 (Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).",
"id": "GHSA-7jmw-w738-jm9h",
"modified": "2026-06-17T18:35:23Z",
"published": "2026-06-17T18:35:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-35289"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cspujun2026.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7JPW-FM5P-F98M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-23 18:31 – Updated: 2026-02-06 18:30SmarterTools SmarterMail versions prior to build 9511 contain an unauthenticated remote code execution vulnerability in the ConnectToHub API method. The attacker could point the SmarterMail to the malicious HTTP server, which serves the malicious OS command. This command will be executed by the vulnerable application.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-24423"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-306"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-23T17:16:13Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "SmarterTools SmarterMail versions prior to build 9511 contain an unauthenticated remote code execution vulnerability in the ConnectToHub API method. The attacker could point the SmarterMail to the malicious HTTP server, which serves the malicious OS command. This command will be executed by the vulnerable application.",
"id": "GHSA-7jpw-fm5p-f98m",
"modified": "2026-02-06T18:30:28Z",
"published": "2026-01-23T18:31:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-24423"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://code-white.com/public-vulnerability-list/#systemadminsettingscontrollerconnecttohub-missing-authentication-in-smartermail"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2026-24423"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.smartertools.com/smartermail/release-notes/current"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/smartertools-smartermail-unauthenticated-rce-via-connecttohub-api"
}
],
"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:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-7JRH-J28C-296F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-08-04 15:30 – Updated: 2024-08-04 15:30IBM Planning Analytics Local 2.0 and 2.1 connects to a MongoDB server. MongoDB, a document-oriented database system, is listening on the remote port, and it is configured to allow connections without password authentication. A remote attacker can gain unauthorized access to the database. IBM X-Force ID: 292420.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-35143"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-306"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-08-04T13:15:57Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "IBM Planning Analytics Local 2.0 and 2.1 connects to a MongoDB server. MongoDB, a document-oriented database system, is listening on the remote port, and it is configured to allow connections without password authentication. A remote attacker can gain unauthorized access to the database. IBM X-Force ID: 292420.",
"id": "GHSA-7jrh-j28c-296f",
"modified": "2024-08-04T15:30:33Z",
"published": "2024-08-04T15:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-35143"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/292420"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7157110"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7JRJ-4GJ5-F734
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 03:48 – Updated: 2022-05-14 03:48SAP Startup Service, SAP KERNEL 7.45, 7.49, and 7.52, is missing an authentication check for functionalities that require user identity and cause consumption of file system storage.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-2360"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-306"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2018-01-09T15:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "SAP Startup Service, SAP KERNEL 7.45, 7.49, and 7.52, is missing an authentication check for functionalities that require user identity and cause consumption of file system storage.",
"id": "GHSA-7jrj-4gj5-f734",
"modified": "2022-05-14T03:48:07Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T03:48:07Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-2360"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blogs.sap.com/2018/01/09/sap-security-patch-day-january-2018"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://launchpad.support.sap.com/#/notes/2523961"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/102448"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation
- Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability.
- Identify all potential communication channels, or other means of interaction with the software, to ensure that all channels are appropriately protected, including those channels that are assumed to be accessible only by authorized parties. Developers sometimes perform authentication at the primary channel, but open up a secondary channel that is assumed to be private. For example, a login mechanism may be listening on one network port, but after successful authentication, it may open up a second port where it waits for the connection, but avoids authentication because it assumes that only the authenticated party will connect to the port.
- In general, if the software or protocol allows a single session or user state to persist across multiple connections or channels, authentication and appropriate credential management need to be used throughout.
Mitigation MIT-15
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Mitigation
- Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment. These capabilities may avoid common weaknesses that are unique to authentication; support automatic auditing and tracking; and make it easier to provide a clear separation between authentication tasks and authorization tasks.
- In environments such as the World Wide Web, the line between authentication and authorization is sometimes blurred. If custom authentication routines are required instead of those provided by the server, then these routines must be applied to every single page, since these pages could be requested directly.
Mitigation MIT-4.5
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 libraries with authentication capabilities such as OpenSSL or the ESAPI Authenticator [REF-45].
Mitigation
When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to require strong authentication for users who should be allowed to access the data [REF-1297] [REF-1298] [REF-1302].
CAPEC-12: Choosing Message Identifier
This pattern of attack is defined by the selection of messages distributed via multicast or public information channels that are intended for another client by determining the parameter value assigned to that client. This attack allows the adversary to gain access to potentially privileged information, and to possibly perpetrate other attacks through the distribution means by impersonation. If the channel/message being manipulated is an input rather than output mechanism for the system, (such as a command bus), this style of attack could be used to change the adversary's identifier to more a privileged one.
CAPEC-166: Force the System to Reset Values
An attacker forces the target into a previous state in order to leverage potential weaknesses in the target dependent upon a prior configuration or state-dependent factors. Even in cases where an attacker may not be able to directly control the configuration of the targeted application, they may be able to reset the configuration to a prior state since many applications implement reset functions.
CAPEC-216: Communication Channel Manipulation
An adversary manipulates a setting or parameter on communications channel in order to compromise its security. This can result in information exposure, insertion/removal of information from the communications stream, and/or potentially system compromise.
CAPEC-36: Using Unpublished Interfaces or Functionality
An adversary searches for and invokes interfaces or functionality that the target system designers did not intend to be publicly available. If interfaces fail to authenticate requests, the attacker may be able to invoke functionality they are not authorized for.
CAPEC-62: Cross Site Request Forgery
An attacker crafts malicious web links and distributes them (via web pages, email, etc.), typically in a targeted manner, hoping to induce users to click on the link and execute the malicious action against some third-party application. If successful, the action embedded in the malicious link will be processed and accepted by the targeted application with the users' privilege level. This type of attack leverages the persistence and implicit trust placed in user session cookies by many web applications today. In such an architecture, once the user authenticates to an application and a session cookie is created on the user's system, all following transactions for that session are authenticated using that cookie including potential actions initiated by an attacker and simply "riding" the existing session cookie.