CWE-862
Weakness Allowed-with-ReviewMissing Authorization
Abstraction: Class · Status: Incomplete
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
Dimensions
- Behavior-Property: Missing
- Behavior-Type: Authorization
Mapping guidance
This CWE entry is a Class and might have Base-level children that would be more appropriate
Examine children of this entry to see if there is a better fit
Relationships and members
Modes of introduction
OMISSION: This weakness is caused by missing a security tactic during the architecture and design phase.
Authorization weaknesses may arise when a single-user application is ported to a multi-user environment.
A developer may introduce authorization weaknesses because of a lack of understanding about the underlying technologies. For example, a developer may assume that attackers cannot modify certain inputs such as headers or cookies.
Detection methods
Automated Static Analysis
Automated static analysis is useful for detecting commonly-used idioms for authorization. A tool may be able to analyze related configuration files, such as .htaccess in Apache web servers, or detect the usage of commonly-used authorization libraries.
Generally, automated static analysis tools have difficulty detecting custom authorization schemes. In addition, the software's design may include some functionality that is accessible to any user and does not require an authorization check; an automated technique that detects the absence of authorization may report false positives.
Effectiveness: Limited
Automated Dynamic Analysis
Automated dynamic analysis may find many or all possible interfaces that do not require authorization, but manual analysis is required to determine if the lack of authorization violates business logic.
Manual Analysis
This weakness can be detected using tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session.
Specifically, manual static analysis is useful for evaluating the correctness of custom authorization mechanisms.
Effectiveness: Moderate
These may be more effective than strictly automated techniques. This is especially the case with weaknesses that are related to design and business rules. However, manual efforts might not achieve desired code coverage within limited time constraints.
Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Cost effective for partial coverage:
Binary / Bytecode disassembler - then use manual analysis for vulnerabilities & anomalies
Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Cost effective for partial coverage:
Web Application Scanner
Web Services Scanner
Database Scanners
Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Cost effective for partial coverage:
Host Application Interface Scanner
Fuzz Tester
Framework-based Fuzzer
Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
Manual Static Analysis - Source Code
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Cost effective for partial coverage:
Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source
Manual Source Code Review (not inspections)
Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
Automated Static Analysis - Source Code
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Cost effective for partial coverage:
Source code Weakness Analyzer
Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer
Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
Architecture or Design Review
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Highly cost effective:
Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.)
Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction
Effectiveness: High
Notes
Terminology
Assuming a user with a given identity, authorization is the process of determining whether that user can access a given resource, based on the user's privileges and any permissions or other access-control specifications that apply to the resource.
Content history
Suggested mappings to ISA/IEC 62443.
Provided diagram to improve CWE usability
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
updated Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Observed_Examples, References, Relationships
updated Potential_Mitigations
updated Relationships
updated Detection_Factors
updated Relationships
updated Applicable_Platforms, Modes_of_Introduction, References, Relationships
updated References
updated Relationships
updated Relationships
updated Relationships
updated Relationships
updated Alternate_Terms, Observed_Examples
updated Observed_Examples, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
updated Relationships
updated Relationships
updated Observed_Examples
updated Description, Potential_Mitigations
updated References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
updated Mapping_Notes, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
updated Common_Consequences, Description, Diagram, Relationships, Terminology_Notes
updated Applicable_Platforms, Detection_Factors, Observed_Examples, References
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
updated Applicable_Platforms, Observed_Examples, Relationships
updated Applicable_Platforms, Dimensions, References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
19823 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-67X2-MQ63-V9VM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-03 22:52 – Updated: 2026-09-03 22:52CVE: This vulnerability corresponds to CVE-2026-72805.
Summary
Three block endpoints return document content snippets and metadata without any publish-access check, while their sibling getBlockInfo which returns comparable data does enforce one. All three are CheckAuth-only, so they are reachable by the publish RoleReader token and by the anonymous account when Publish.Auth.Enable is false. An anonymous reader supplying a block ID receives content and metadata belonging to publish-forbidden and password-protected documents.
Details
getBlockInfo (kernel/api/block.go) gates on the publish boundary:
if !checkBlockPublishAccess(c, id, ret) {
return
}
The following siblings in the same file perform no equivalent check:
| Endpoint | Returns | Publish check |
|---|---|---|
getBlockInfo |
root/title/path metadata | checkBlockPublishAccess: present |
getBlockBreadcrumb |
BlockPath.Name : root document title plus every ancestor block's content snippet |
none |
getRefText |
the block's reference/anchor text (document content) | none |
getBlockTreeInfos |
root/title/path metadata for arbitrary block IDs | none |
getBlockBreadcrumb returns the full ancestor chain including each ancestor block's content snippet, and getRefText returns block anchor text both are document content, not just metadata. getBlockTreeInfos returns root/title/path for any caller-supplied ID set via model.GetBlockTreeInfosInBox(...) with no gate.
getBlockBreadcrumb and getRefText additionally accept a client-supplied notebook argument that routes to the *InBox variants, so the same unguarded path applies to encrypted-notebook reads while the notebook is unlocked.
The correct primitive already exists in the codebase and is used by getBlockInfo; these three handlers simply do not call it.
Proof of Concept
Precondition: publish mode enabled (default port 6808); anonymous when Publish.Auth.Enable is false, otherwise any publish reader account. A document D is marked publish-forbidden (or password-protected) and contains a block BLOCK_ID under a heading with distinctive content.
Control: the gated sibling correctly refuses:
POST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/block/getBlockInfo
{"id":"BLOCK_ID"}
Blocked by checkBlockPublishAccess.
Disclosure: the ungated siblings return the data anyway:
POST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/block/getBlockBreadcrumb
{"id":"BLOCK_ID"}
→ ancestor chain including the forbidden document's title and ancestor block content snippets
POST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/block/getRefText
{"id":"BLOCK_ID"}
→ the block's reference/anchor text (content of the forbidden document)
POST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/block/getBlockTreeInfos
{"ids":["BLOCK_ID"]}
→ root ID, title, and path for the forbidden document
Verified by code inspection at origin/master (eef10568): getBlockInfo contains the checkBlockPublishAccess call; getBlockBreadcrumb, getRefText, and getBlockTreeInfos contain no publish-access, publish-ignore, or readonly-role check in their bodies.
Impact
An anonymous reader (publish mode with auth disabled) or any publish RoleReader can read, for documents explicitly excluded from publishing or protected by a publish password:
- the document title and full ancestor chain, including ancestor block content snippets (getBlockBreadcrumb);
- block reference/anchor text, i.e. document content (getRefText);
- root ID, title, and path metadata for arbitrary block IDs (getBlockTreeInfos).
Because getBlockBreadcrumb and getRefText accept a notebook argument routing to the *InBox variants, the same disclosure applies to encrypted notebooks while unlocked. Confidentiality-only; the precondition is a block ID, obtainable from other reader-reachable endpoints.
Suggested fix
Call checkBlockPublishAccess (as getBlockInfo does) in getBlockBreadcrumb, getRefText, and getBlockTreeInfos before returning data for getBlockTreeInfos, apply it per ID and drop unauthorized entries. Confirm the *InBox variants (GetBlockRefTextInBox, BuildBlockBreadcrumbInBox) enforce the same boundary so the notebook-argument path is covered.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.0.0-20260723163028-931ba693375e"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-72805"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-09-03T22:52:12Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "**CVE:** This vulnerability corresponds to [CVE-2026-72805](https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-72805).\n\n### Summary\n\nThree block endpoints return document content snippets and metadata without any publish-access check, while their sibling `getBlockInfo` which returns comparable data does enforce one. All three are `CheckAuth`-only, so they are reachable by the publish `RoleReader` token and by the anonymous account when `Publish.Auth.Enable` is `false`. An anonymous reader supplying a block ID receives content and metadata belonging to publish-forbidden and password-protected documents.\n\n### Details\n\n`getBlockInfo` (`kernel/api/block.go`) gates on the publish boundary:\n```go\nif !checkBlockPublishAccess(c, id, ret) {\n return\n}\n```\n\nThe following siblings in the same file perform no equivalent check:\n\n| Endpoint | Returns | Publish check |\n|---|---|---|\n| `getBlockInfo` | root/title/path metadata | `checkBlockPublishAccess`: present |\n| `getBlockBreadcrumb` | `BlockPath.Name` : root document title plus every ancestor block\u0027s content snippet | none |\n| `getRefText` | the block\u0027s reference/anchor text (document content) | none |\n| `getBlockTreeInfos` | root/title/path metadata for arbitrary block IDs | none |\n\n`getBlockBreadcrumb` returns the full ancestor chain including each ancestor block\u0027s content snippet, and `getRefText` returns block anchor text both are document content, not just metadata. `getBlockTreeInfos` returns root/title/path for any caller-supplied ID set via `model.GetBlockTreeInfosInBox(...)` with no gate.\n\n`getBlockBreadcrumb` and `getRefText` additionally accept a client-supplied notebook argument that routes to the `*InBox` variants, so the same unguarded path applies to encrypted-notebook reads while the notebook is unlocked.\n\nThe correct primitive already exists in the codebase and is used by `getBlockInfo`; these three handlers simply do not call it.\n\n### Proof of Concept\n\nPrecondition: publish mode enabled (default port 6808); anonymous when `Publish.Auth.Enable` is `false`, otherwise any publish reader account. A document `D` is marked publish-forbidden (or password-protected) and contains a block `BLOCK_ID` under a heading with distinctive content.\n\n**Control: the gated sibling correctly refuses:**\n```\nPOST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/block/getBlockInfo\n{\"id\":\"BLOCK_ID\"}\n```\nBlocked by `checkBlockPublishAccess`.\n\n**Disclosure: the ungated siblings return the data anyway:**\n```\nPOST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/block/getBlockBreadcrumb\n{\"id\":\"BLOCK_ID\"}\n\u2192 ancestor chain including the forbidden document\u0027s title and ancestor block content snippets\n\nPOST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/block/getRefText\n{\"id\":\"BLOCK_ID\"}\n\u2192 the block\u0027s reference/anchor text (content of the forbidden document)\n\nPOST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/block/getBlockTreeInfos\n{\"ids\":[\"BLOCK_ID\"]}\n\u2192 root ID, title, and path for the forbidden document\n```\n\nVerified by code inspection at `origin/master` (`eef10568`): `getBlockInfo` contains the `checkBlockPublishAccess` call; `getBlockBreadcrumb`, `getRefText`, and `getBlockTreeInfos` contain no publish-access, publish-ignore, or readonly-role check in their bodies.\n\n### Impact\n\nAn anonymous reader (publish mode with auth disabled) or any publish `RoleReader` can read, for documents explicitly excluded from publishing or protected by a publish password:\n- the document title and full ancestor chain, including ancestor block content snippets (`getBlockBreadcrumb`);\n- block reference/anchor text, i.e. document content (`getRefText`);\n- root ID, title, and path metadata for arbitrary block IDs (`getBlockTreeInfos`).\n\nBecause `getBlockBreadcrumb` and `getRefText` accept a notebook argument routing to the `*InBox` variants, the same disclosure applies to encrypted notebooks while unlocked. Confidentiality-only; the precondition is a block ID, obtainable from other reader-reachable endpoints.\n\n### Suggested fix\n\nCall `checkBlockPublishAccess` (as `getBlockInfo` does) in `getBlockBreadcrumb`, `getRefText`, and `getBlockTreeInfos` before returning data for `getBlockTreeInfos`, apply it per ID and drop unauthorized entries. Confirm the `*InBox` variants (`GetBlockRefTextInBox`, `BuildBlockBreadcrumbInBox`) enforce the same boundary so the notebook-argument path is covered.",
"id": "GHSA-67x2-mq63-v9vm",
"modified": "2026-09-03T22:52:12Z",
"published": "2026-09-03T22:52:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/security/advisories/GHSA-67x2-mq63-v9vm"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-72805"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/commit/931ba693375ea9877b2ef74f9bfb632fad5bab3f"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/siyuan-before-information-disclosure-via-block-endpoints"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "SiYuan: Missing publish-access check on getBlockBreadcrumb, getRefText, and getBlockTreeInfos discloses content and metadata of protected/forbidden documents"
}
GHSA-682W-9RVW-QW43
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-01-18 18:30 – Updated: 2023-01-26 18:30An issue in MatrixSSL 4.5.1-open and earlier leads to failure to securely check the SessionID field, resulting in the misuse of an all-zero MasterSecret that can decrypt secret data.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-46505"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-665",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-01-18T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue in MatrixSSL 4.5.1-open and earlier leads to failure to securely check the SessionID field, resulting in the misuse of an all-zero MasterSecret that can decrypt secret data.",
"id": "GHSA-682w-9rvw-qw43",
"modified": "2023-01-26T18:30:47Z",
"published": "2023-01-18T18:30:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-46505"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/SmallTown123/details-for-CVE-2022-46505"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://smalltown123.notion.site/MatrixSSL-session-resume-bug-a0"
}
],
"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-683Q-84JH-X5VV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-10-30 18:30 – Updated: 2023-11-03 21:30In Telecomm, there is a possible way to silence the ring for calls of secondary users due to a missing permission check. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-21378"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-10-30T18:15:09Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In Telecomm, there is a possible way to silence the ring for calls of secondary users due to a missing permission check. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.",
"id": "GHSA-683q-84jh-x5vv",
"modified": "2023-11-03T21:30:25Z",
"published": "2023-10-30T18:30:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-21378"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/android-14"
}
],
"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-685G-7W4H-726P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-13 15:30 – Updated: 2026-04-23 15:33Missing Authorization vulnerability in Premmerce Premmerce User Roles allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Premmerce User Roles: from n/a through 1.0.12.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-41130"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-13T15:15:22Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Premmerce Premmerce User Roles allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Premmerce User Roles: from n/a through 1.0.12.",
"id": "GHSA-685g-7w4h-726p",
"modified": "2026-04-23T15:33:50Z",
"published": "2024-12-13T15:30:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-41130"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/premmerce-user-roles/vulnerability/wordpress-premmerce-user-roles-plugin-1-0-12-broken-access-control-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-6868-G34R-2XQ9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-11-06 12:30 – Updated: 2026-11-06 12:30The Redirection for Contact Form 7 plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versions up to, and including, 3.2.14 This is due to the plugin not properly verifying that a user is authorized to perform an action. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to write arbitrary post meta values to newly created lead posts and copy arbitrary server-side files with allowed MIME-type extensions into the plugin's uploads directory. Exploitation requires a published Contact Form 7 form configured with the Save Entry (Save Lead) action enabled on the target site.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-120659"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-11-06T10:16:37Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Redirection for Contact Form 7 plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versions up to, and including, 3.2.14 This is due to the plugin not properly verifying that a user is authorized to perform an action. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to write arbitrary post meta values to newly created lead posts and copy arbitrary server-side files with allowed MIME-type extensions into the plugin\u0027s uploads directory. Exploitation requires a published Contact Form 7 form configured with the Save Entry (Save Lead) action enabled on the target site.",
"id": "GHSA-6868-g34r-2xq9",
"modified": "2026-11-06T12:30:36Z",
"published": "2026-11-06T12:30:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-120659"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wpcf7-redirect/tags/3.2.14/classes/actions/class-wpcf7r-action-save-lead.php#L200"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wpcf7-redirect/tags/3.2.14/classes/class-wpcf7r-leads-manager.php#L541"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wpcf7-redirect/tags/3.2.14/classes/class-wpcf7r-post-types.php#L264"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wpcf7-redirect/tags/3.2.14/classes/class-wpcf7r-post-types.php#L28"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wpcf7-redirect/tags/3.2.14/classes/class-wpcf7r-post-types.php#L289"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wpcf7-redirect/tags/3.2.14/classes/class-wpcf7r-save-files.php#L202"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wpcf7-redirect/tags/3.2.15"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/a07e05b8-590e-41fa-acf7-bcaac4ee8615?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-686P-7Q3M-4R7X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:11 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:11GitLab EE 12.4.2 through 12.8.1 allows Denial of Service. It was internally discovered that a potential denial of service involving permissions checks could impact a project home page.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-10073"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-03-13T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "GitLab EE 12.4.2 through 12.8.1 allows Denial of Service. It was internally discovered that a potential denial of service involving permissions checks could impact a project home page.",
"id": "GHSA-686p-7q3m-4r7x",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:11:27Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:11:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-10073"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://about.gitlab.com/releases/2020/03/04/gitlab-12-dot-8-dot-2-released"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://about.gitlab.com/releases/2020/03/04/gitlab-12-dot-8-dot-2-released/index.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-6879-VFM4-HV3X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-08-18 09:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 07:02The Stripe Payment Plugin for WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the eh_callback_handler function in versions up to, and including, 3.7.9. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify the order status of arbitrary WooCommerce orders.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-4040"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-08-18T07:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Stripe Payment Plugin for WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the eh_callback_handler function in versions up to, and including, 3.7.9. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify the order status of arbitrary WooCommerce orders.",
"id": "GHSA-6879-vfm4-hv3x",
"modified": "2024-04-04T07:02:40Z",
"published": "2023-08-18T09:30:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-4040"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/2954934"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/ef543c61-2acc-4b72-81ff-883960d4c7c3?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-689C-7X7V-4XM7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-13 15:30 – Updated: 2026-04-28 21:35Missing Authorization vulnerability in wpdirectorykit.com WP Directory Kit allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects WP Directory Kit: from n/a through 1.2.6.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-41875"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-13T15:15:25Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in wpdirectorykit.com WP Directory Kit allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects WP Directory Kit: from n/a through 1.2.6.",
"id": "GHSA-689c-7x7v-4xm7",
"modified": "2026-04-28T21:35:27Z",
"published": "2024-12-13T15:30:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-41875"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/wpdirectorykit/vulnerability/wordpress-wp-directory-kit-plugin-1-2-6-broken-access-control-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"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-689G-3F7F-VVG3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-01 15:32 – Updated: 2024-11-01 15:32Missing Authorization vulnerability in CozyThemes Blockbooster allows Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs.This issue affects Blockbooster: from n/a through 1.0.10.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-43979"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-01T15:15:50Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in CozyThemes Blockbooster allows Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs.This issue affects Blockbooster: from n/a through 1.0.10.",
"id": "GHSA-689g-3f7f-vvg3",
"modified": "2024-11-01T15:32:00Z",
"published": "2024-11-01T15:32:00Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-43979"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/blockbooster/wordpress-blockbooster-theme-1-0-10-broken-access-control-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-68F5-7J6G-Q5R2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-01 06:31 – Updated: 2026-08-01 06:31The FormGent plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized arbitrary file deletion due to a missing capability check on the /wp-json/formgent/responses/attachments REST API endpoint in all versions up to, and including, 1.9.2 This is due to the REST API route being registered without any authentication middleware in routes/rest/api.php. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to delete arbitrary files within the formgent uploads directory. Additionally, on Linux servers where the wp-content/uploads/formgent directory does not yet exist (the default state after plugin installation), the path traversal protection can be bypassed, enabling deletion of arbitrary files including wp-config.php which can lead to complete site takeover via a fresh WordPress installation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-3141"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-01T06:16:26Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "The FormGent plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized arbitrary file deletion due to a missing capability check on the /wp-json/formgent/responses/attachments REST API endpoint in all versions up to, and including, 1.9.2 This is due to the REST API route being registered without any authentication middleware in routes/rest/api.php. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to delete arbitrary files within the formgent uploads directory. Additionally, on Linux servers where the wp-content/uploads/formgent directory does not yet exist (the default state after plugin installation), the path traversal protection can be bypassed, enabling deletion of arbitrary files including wp-config.php which can lead to complete site takeover via a fresh WordPress installation.",
"id": "GHSA-68f5-7j6g-q5r2",
"modified": "2026-08-01T06:31:03Z",
"published": "2026-08-01T06:31:03Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-3141"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/formgent/tags/1.3.1/app/Http/Controllers/AttachmentController.php#L59"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/formgent/tags/1.3.1/routes/rest/api.php#L27"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/formgent/trunk/app/Http/Controllers/AttachmentController.php#L59"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/formgent/trunk/routes/rest/api.php#L27"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3604540/formgent/trunk/app/Http/Controllers/AttachmentController.php"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?old_path=%2Fformgent/tags/1.9.2\u0026new_path=%2Fformgent/tags/1.10.0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/097a9d0f-fa38-4fdc-9048-43dd65e7652c?source=cve"
}
],
"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: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) [REF-229] 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 access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied 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 [REF-7].
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-665: Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws
An adversary leverages a firmware weakness within the Thunderbolt protocol, on a computing device to manipulate Thunderbolt controller firmware in order to exploit vulnerabilities in the implementation of authorization and verification schemes within Thunderbolt protection mechanisms. Upon gaining physical access to a target device, the adversary conducts high-level firmware manipulation of the victim Thunderbolt controller SPI (Serial Peripheral Interface) flash, through the use of a SPI Programing device and an external Thunderbolt device, typically as the target device is booting up. If successful, this allows the adversary to modify memory, subvert authentication mechanisms, spoof identities and content, and extract data and memory from the target device. Currently 7 major vulnerabilities exist within Thunderbolt protocol with 9 attack vectors as noted in the Execution Flow.