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-6C37-PJH3-94V6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-03 15:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:34Missing Authorization vulnerability in enituretechnology Small Package Quotes – Worldwide Express Edition allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels. This issue affects Small Package Quotes – Worldwide Express Edition: from n/a through 5.2.19.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-30915"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-03T14:15:34Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in enituretechnology Small Package Quotes \u2013 Worldwide Express Edition allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels. This issue affects Small Package Quotes \u2013 Worldwide Express Edition: from n/a through 5.2.19.",
"id": "GHSA-6c37-pjh3-94v6",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:34:27Z",
"published": "2025-04-03T15:31:14Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-30915"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/small-package-quotes-wwe-edition/vulnerability/wordpress-small-package-quotes-worldwide-express-edition-plugin-5-2-19-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-6C3F-32HF-FQ4P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-16 18:32 – Updated: 2026-09-16 18:32A security flaw has been discovered in ChangeWeDer crm up to c07bd4c97141521af6475034bc58523beed51bbd. This issue affects the function index of the file UserController.java of the component top.upstudy.crm.controller.UserController. The manipulation results in missing authorization. The attack can be launched remotely. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-92402"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-16T17:18:19Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A security flaw has been discovered in ChangeWeDer crm up to c07bd4c97141521af6475034bc58523beed51bbd. This issue affects the function index of the file UserController.java of the component top.upstudy.crm.controller.UserController. The manipulation results in missing authorization. The attack can be launched remotely. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.",
"id": "GHSA-6c3f-32hf-fq4p",
"modified": "2026-09-16T18:32:05Z",
"published": "2026-09-16T18:32:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-92402"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ChangeWeDer/crm/issues/3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ChangeWeDer/crm"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-92402"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/submit/940349"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/405553"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/405553/cti"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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-6C3H-GXFP-37VM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-19 18:31 – Updated: 2026-02-20 18:31Missing Authorization vulnerability in cmsmasters CMSMasters Content Composer cmsmasters-content-composer allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects CMSMasters Content Composer: from n/a through <= 2.5.8.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-23547"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-19T09:16:12Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in cmsmasters CMSMasters Content Composer cmsmasters-content-composer allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects CMSMasters Content Composer: from n/a through \u003c= 2.5.8.",
"id": "GHSA-6c3h-gxfp-37vm",
"modified": "2026-02-20T18:31:27Z",
"published": "2026-02-19T18:31:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-23547"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/cmsmasters-content-composer/vulnerability/wordpress-cmsmasters-content-composer-plugin-2-5-8-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:H/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-6C46-P6J5-3F49
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-13 20:37 – Updated: 2026-01-13 20:37Problem
Backend users with access to the redirects module and write permission on the sys_redirect table were able to read, create, and modify any redirect record - without restriction to the user’s own file‑mounts or web‑mounts. This allowed attackers to insert or alter redirects pointing to arbitrary URLs - facilitating phishing or other malicious redirect attacks.
Solution
Update to TYPO3 versions 10.4.55 ELTS, 11.5.49 ELTS, 12.4.41 LTS, 13.4.23 LTS, 14.0.2 that fix the problem described.
Credits
Thanks to Georg Dümmler for reporting this issue, and to TYPO3 security team member Elias Häußler for fixing it.
References
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 14.0.1"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "typo3/cms-redirects"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "14.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "14.0.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 13.4.22"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "typo3/cms-redirects"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "13.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "13.4.23"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 12.4.40"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "typo3/cms-redirects"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "12.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "12.4.41"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 11.5.48"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "typo3/cms-redirects"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "11.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "11.5.49"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 10.4.54"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "typo3/cms-redirects"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "10.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "10.4.55"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-59021"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-01-13T20:37:37Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-13T12:15:50Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Problem\nBackend users with access to the redirects module and write permission on the `sys_redirect` table were able to read, create, and modify any redirect record - without restriction to the user\u2019s own file\u2011mounts or web\u2011mounts. This allowed attackers to insert or alter redirects pointing to arbitrary URLs - facilitating phishing or other malicious redirect attacks.\n\n### Solution\nUpdate to TYPO3 versions 10.4.55 ELTS, 11.5.49 ELTS, 12.4.41 LTS, 13.4.23 LTS, 14.0.2 that fix the problem described.\n\n### Credits\nThanks to Georg D\u00fcmmler for reporting this issue, and to TYPO3 security team member Elias H\u00e4u\u00dfler for fixing it.\n\n### References\n* [TYPO3-CORE-SA-2026-002](https://typo3.org/security/advisory/typo3-core-sa-2026-002)",
"id": "GHSA-6c46-p6j5-3f49",
"modified": "2026-01-13T20:37:37Z",
"published": "2026-01-13T20:37:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/TYPO3/typo3/security/advisories/GHSA-6c46-p6j5-3f49"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-59021"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/TYPO3/typo3/commit/8a46abd8993e3a5a31a834dcd6c8f91adef57ce4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/TYPO3/typo3/commit/bac370df5c1c3fcf5ebc1c030fbd2bec86d6a686"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/TYPO3/typo3/commit/fbbae3b9a40d0420207ef7af990cdf1ac0612c0b"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/TYPO3/typo3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://typo3.org/security/advisory/typo3-core-sa-2026-002"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "TYPO3 CMS Allows Broken Access Control in Redirects Module"
}
GHSA-6C47-JWPM-32QX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-27 06:31 – Updated: 2026-08-27 18:32The CMP WordPress plugin before 4.1.18 does not perform authorization checks on one of its AJAX actions and relies on a nonce that is skipped for certain (and exposed to anonymous visitors on others), allowing unauthenticated attackers to disable the site's maintenance/coming-soon mode under a non-default countdown configuration.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-13414"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-27T06:16:55Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The CMP WordPress plugin before 4.1.18 does not perform authorization checks on one of its AJAX actions and relies on a nonce that is skipped for certain (and exposed to anonymous visitors on others), allowing unauthenticated attackers to disable the site\u0027s maintenance/coming-soon mode under a non-default countdown configuration.",
"id": "GHSA-6c47-jwpm-32qx",
"modified": "2026-08-27T18:32:08Z",
"published": "2026-08-27T06:31:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-13414"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/096f11ce-060a-403a-8af0-ae2ee7676318"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-6C4C-5HCJ-J9PJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-06-12 09:30 – Updated: 2024-06-12 09:30Missing Authorization vulnerability in Brett Shumaker Simple Staff List.This issue affects Simple Staff List: from n/a through 2.2.4.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-51526"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-06-12T09:15:11Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Brett Shumaker Simple Staff List.This issue affects Simple Staff List: from n/a through 2.2.4.",
"id": "GHSA-6c4c-5hcj-j9pj",
"modified": "2024-06-12T09:30:48Z",
"published": "2024-06-12T09:30:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-51526"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/simple-staff-list/wordpress-simple-staff-list-plugin-2-2-4-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:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-6C4V-HV9Q-25JC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-16 06:30 – Updated: 2026-08-16 06:30The ShortPixel Adaptive Images – WebP, AVIF, CDN, Image Optimization plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versions up to, and including, 3.11.5. This is due to the plugin not properly verifying that a user is authorized to perform an action. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level access and above, to modify configuration options of third-party plugins including ShortPixel Image Optimizer, Autoptimize, WP Rocket, Imagify, and LiteSpeed Cache, as well as the plugin's own API key and account binding. Exploitation requires the respective third-party plugins to be installed, as the impact against those plugins' settings is only reachable when those plugins are present.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-15345"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-16T06:16:50Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The ShortPixel Adaptive Images \u2013 WebP, AVIF, CDN, Image Optimization plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versions up to, and including, 3.11.5. This is due to the plugin not properly verifying that a user is authorized to perform an action. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level access and above, to modify configuration options of third-party plugins including ShortPixel Image Optimizer, Autoptimize, WP Rocket, Imagify, and LiteSpeed Cache, as well as the plugin\u0027s own API key and account binding. Exploitation requires the respective third-party plugins to be installed, as the impact against those plugins\u0027 settings is only reachable when those plugins are present.",
"id": "GHSA-6c4v-hv9q-25jc",
"modified": "2026-08-16T06:30:25Z",
"published": "2026-08-16T06:30:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-15345"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/shortpixel-adaptive-images/tags/3.11.5/includes/actions/notice.actions.class.php#L16"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/shortpixel-adaptive-images/tags/3.11.5/includes/actions/notice.actions.class.php#L566"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/shortpixel-adaptive-images/tags/3.11.5/includes/actions/notice.actions.class.php#L614"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/shortpixel-adaptive-images/tags/3.11.5/includes/actions/notice.actions.class.php#L87"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/shortpixel-adaptive-images/tags/3.11.5/includes/controllers/notice.class.php#L747"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?reponame=\u0026old=3625451%40shortpixel-adaptive-images\u0026new=3625451%40shortpixel-adaptive-images"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/c3efae8f-ca89-4d8c-a177-6793994b3ea0?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-6C66-33PW-Q83J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-11 12:32 – Updated: 2026-06-11 12:32A Missing Authorization vulnerability in the playbook import functionality in Dialogflow CX on Google Cloud Platform allows an authenticated user with specific roles to escalate privileges and potentially take over a GCP project using a maliciously crafted playbook import.
This vulnerability was patched on 15 March 2026, and no customer action is needed.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-4764"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-11T12:16:31Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "A Missing Authorization vulnerability in the playbook import functionality in Dialogflow CX on Google Cloud Platform allows an authenticated user with specific roles to escalate privileges and potentially take over a GCP project using a maliciously crafted playbook import.\n\n\nThis vulnerability was patched on 15 March 2026, and no customer action is needed.",
"id": "GHSA-6c66-33pw-q83j",
"modified": "2026-06-11T12:32:44Z",
"published": "2026-06-11T12:32:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-4764"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.cloud.google.com/dialogflow/docs/release-notes#May_07_2026"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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:Clear",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-6C6R-5XR4-CR5M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-21 20:22 – Updated: 2026-07-21 20:22Summary
Gitea's issue and comment attachment update paths accept attachment UUIDs without verifying that each attachment belongs to the target issue/comment repository. If an authenticated attacker knows a victim attachment UUID, they can re-link that attachment to an attacker-controlled issue or comment, causing later attachment access checks to use the attacker's repository authorization context.
Affected
- Component: web issue/comment attachment handling.
- Confirmed version:
maincommita39b2775edcb3ba53def96794491b91335117d81(v1.27.0-dev-352-ga39b2775ed). - Fixed in: not fixed at the time of validation.
- Other versions: not exhaustively tested. The affected code path appears structurally similar to versions that contain the current issue/comment attachment update logic.
Description / Root Cause
files[] values from issue/comment edit flows are passed to updateAttachments in routers/web/repo/issue.go:589-629. That helper calls:
models/issues/issue_update.go:267-278(UpdateIssueAttachments)models/issues/comment.go:623-642(UpdateCommentAttachments)
Both functions load attachments by UUID and update the attachment linkage, but neither validates that the attachment row's RepoID matches the repository of the target issue/comment. They also do not reject attachments already linked to a different issue/comment.
Attachment reads then use the linked issue/release repository to decide access:
services/repository/repository.go:185-207returns the repository ID fromIssueIDorReleaseID.routers/web/repo/attachment.go:153-184checks read permission on that linked repository.routers/web/repo/attachment.go:216-224opens and serves the file from the attachment's storage path after the linked-repository permission check succeeds.
For the global /attachments/{uuid} route in routers/web/web.go:872-876, there is no current repository context, so the early attach.RepoID mismatch check in ServeAttachment does not protect against this re-linking case.
A patched sibling path already demonstrates the intended invariant: models/repo/release.go:179-215 rejects release attachments whose RepoID differs from the release repository. That guard was introduced for CVE-2026-20736, but the issue/comment paths still lack an equivalent check.
Impact
An attacker who can edit an issue/comment in a repository they can read can move a known victim attachment UUID into that repository's authorization context. After the re-link, the attachment download path resolves access against the attacker-controlled repository while serving the original attachment file.
This can disclose private issue/comment attachments if the attacker has obtained the UUID through prior legitimate access, copied links, notification content, logs, browser history, or another exposure. The attack does not require write access to the victim repository.
Reproduction Summary
Full HTTP/E2E observation:
- A local Gitea server was started with an isolated SQLite database.
- A victim user created private repositories, private issues, and issue attachments containing unique marker strings.
- An attacker user first attempted to download each victim attachment through
/attachments/{uuid}and received404. - The attacker then submitted the victim UUID through the real issue edit route in an attacker-controlled public repository.
- The same attacker could then download the victim issue attachment through
/attachments/{uuid}and received200; the response body contained the unique issue marker. - The attacker repeated the flow through the real comment edit route and could download the second victim attachment with
200; the response body contained the unique comment marker.
Model-level issue-path behavior:
- A fixture attachment with
RepoID = 2andIssueID = 4was passed toUpdateIssueAttachmentsfor attacker issueID = 1, whoseRepoID = 1. - The call succeeded.
- The attachment row still had
RepoID = 2, but itsIssueIDwas changed to the attacker issue. GetAttachmentLinkedTypeAndRepoIDthen resolved the attachment to attacker repositoryRepoID = 1.
Model-level comment-path behavior:
- The same cross-repository attachment UUID was passed to
UpdateCommentAttachmentsfor attacker commentID = 1. - The call succeeded.
- The attachment row still had
RepoID = 2, but itsIssueIDandCommentIDwere changed to the attacker's issue/comment. - The linked repository used for access checks became attacker repository
RepoID = 1.
Negative control:
- Existing release test
TestAddReleaseAttachmentsRejectsDifferentRepopasses and confirms the release path rejects the same class of cross-repository attachment linkage.
Detailed verifier and step-by-step runbook are available on request.
Suggested Fix
Add repository and linkage validation before updating issue/comment attachments.
Recommended checks:
- Load the target issue for
UpdateIssueAttachmentsand derive itsRepoID. - Load the target comment's issue for
UpdateCommentAttachmentsand derive itsRepoID. - Reject any attachment whose
RepoIDdiffers from the target issue repository. - Reject attachments already linked to a different issue/comment/release, except for attachments already linked to the same object being updated.
- If caller context is available at the web/service layer, also require new unlinked attachments to belong to the current actor or to have been uploaded in the current edit session.
- Preserve any legacy
RepoID = 0migration behavior only when it can be proven safe for the target repository.
Also consider a cleanup/audit query for existing inconsistent rows where attachment.issue_id != 0 and attachment.repo_id differs from the linked issue repository.
Regression Tests
Add tests that fail before the fix and pass after it:
UpdateIssueAttachmentsrejects an attachment whoseRepoIDdiffers from the target issue'sRepoID.UpdateCommentAttachmentsrejects an attachment whoseRepoIDdiffers from the target comment issue'sRepoID.- Same-repository unlinked attachment linking still works for normal issue/comment editing.
- Attachments already linked to a different issue/comment cannot be moved by passing their UUID in
files[]. - Existing release guard test remains passing.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "code.gitea.io/gitea"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.27.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-57886"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-639",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-21T20:22:58Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nGitea\u0027s issue and comment attachment update paths accept attachment UUIDs without verifying that each attachment belongs to the target issue/comment repository. If an authenticated attacker knows a victim attachment UUID, they can re-link that attachment to an attacker-controlled issue or comment, causing later attachment access checks to use the attacker\u0027s repository authorization context.\n\n## Affected\n\n- Component: web issue/comment attachment handling.\n- Confirmed version: `main` commit `a39b2775edcb3ba53def96794491b91335117d81` (`v1.27.0-dev-352-ga39b2775ed`).\n- Fixed in: not fixed at the time of validation.\n- Other versions: not exhaustively tested. The affected code path appears structurally similar to versions that contain the current issue/comment attachment update logic.\n\n## Description / Root Cause\n\n`files[]` values from issue/comment edit flows are passed to `updateAttachments` in `routers/web/repo/issue.go:589-629`. That helper calls:\n\n- `models/issues/issue_update.go:267-278` (`UpdateIssueAttachments`)\n- `models/issues/comment.go:623-642` (`UpdateCommentAttachments`)\n\nBoth functions load attachments by UUID and update the attachment linkage, but neither validates that the attachment row\u0027s `RepoID` matches the repository of the target issue/comment. They also do not reject attachments already linked to a different issue/comment.\n\nAttachment reads then use the linked issue/release repository to decide access:\n\n- `services/repository/repository.go:185-207` returns the repository ID from `IssueID` or `ReleaseID`.\n- `routers/web/repo/attachment.go:153-184` checks read permission on that linked repository.\n- `routers/web/repo/attachment.go:216-224` opens and serves the file from the attachment\u0027s storage path after the linked-repository permission check succeeds.\n\nFor the global `/attachments/{uuid}` route in `routers/web/web.go:872-876`, there is no current repository context, so the early `attach.RepoID` mismatch check in `ServeAttachment` does not protect against this re-linking case.\n\nA patched sibling path already demonstrates the intended invariant: `models/repo/release.go:179-215` rejects release attachments whose `RepoID` differs from the release repository. That guard was introduced for CVE-2026-20736, but the issue/comment paths still lack an equivalent check.\n\n## Impact\n\nAn attacker who can edit an issue/comment in a repository they can read can move a known victim attachment UUID into that repository\u0027s authorization context. After the re-link, the attachment download path resolves access against the attacker-controlled repository while serving the original attachment file.\n\nThis can disclose private issue/comment attachments if the attacker has obtained the UUID through prior legitimate access, copied links, notification content, logs, browser history, or another exposure. The attack does not require write access to the victim repository.\n\n## Reproduction Summary\n\nFull HTTP/E2E observation:\n\n- A local Gitea server was started with an isolated SQLite database.\n- A victim user created private repositories, private issues, and issue attachments containing unique marker strings.\n- An attacker user first attempted to download each victim attachment through `/attachments/{uuid}` and received `404`.\n- The attacker then submitted the victim UUID through the real issue edit route in an attacker-controlled public repository.\n- The same attacker could then download the victim issue attachment through `/attachments/{uuid}` and received `200`; the response body contained the unique issue marker.\n- The attacker repeated the flow through the real comment edit route and could download the second victim attachment with `200`; the response body contained the unique comment marker.\n\nModel-level issue-path behavior:\n\n- A fixture attachment with `RepoID = 2` and `IssueID = 4` was passed to `UpdateIssueAttachments` for attacker issue `ID = 1`, whose `RepoID = 1`.\n- The call succeeded.\n- The attachment row still had `RepoID = 2`, but its `IssueID` was changed to the attacker issue.\n- `GetAttachmentLinkedTypeAndRepoID` then resolved the attachment to attacker repository `RepoID = 1`.\n\nModel-level comment-path behavior:\n\n- The same cross-repository attachment UUID was passed to `UpdateCommentAttachments` for attacker comment `ID = 1`.\n- The call succeeded.\n- The attachment row still had `RepoID = 2`, but its `IssueID` and `CommentID` were changed to the attacker\u0027s issue/comment.\n- The linked repository used for access checks became attacker repository `RepoID = 1`.\n\nNegative control:\n\n- Existing release test `TestAddReleaseAttachmentsRejectsDifferentRepo` passes and confirms the release path rejects the same class of cross-repository attachment linkage.\n\nDetailed verifier and step-by-step runbook are available on request.\n\n## Suggested Fix\n\nAdd repository and linkage validation before updating issue/comment attachments.\n\nRecommended checks:\n\n- Load the target issue for `UpdateIssueAttachments` and derive its `RepoID`.\n- Load the target comment\u0027s issue for `UpdateCommentAttachments` and derive its `RepoID`.\n- Reject any attachment whose `RepoID` differs from the target issue repository.\n- Reject attachments already linked to a different issue/comment/release, except for attachments already linked to the same object being updated.\n- If caller context is available at the web/service layer, also require new unlinked attachments to belong to the current actor or to have been uploaded in the current edit session.\n- Preserve any legacy `RepoID = 0` migration behavior only when it can be proven safe for the target repository.\n\nAlso consider a cleanup/audit query for existing inconsistent rows where `attachment.issue_id != 0` and `attachment.repo_id` differs from the linked issue repository.\n\n## Regression Tests\n\nAdd tests that fail before the fix and pass after it:\n\n- `UpdateIssueAttachments` rejects an attachment whose `RepoID` differs from the target issue\u0027s `RepoID`.\n- `UpdateCommentAttachments` rejects an attachment whose `RepoID` differs from the target comment issue\u0027s `RepoID`.\n- Same-repository unlinked attachment linking still works for normal issue/comment editing.\n- Attachments already linked to a different issue/comment cannot be moved by passing their UUID in `files[]`.\n- Existing release guard test remains passing.",
"id": "GHSA-6c6r-5xr4-cr5m",
"modified": "2026-07-21T20:22:58Z",
"published": "2026-07-21T20:22:58Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/security/advisories/GHSA-6c6r-5xr4-cr5m"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/38406"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/38426"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/commit/de4b8277e9cb576f2315fb03b5ab6478b42a1d31"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/commit/f69e15afe7496cc62e96dab244629c69eb31a7bf"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/releases/tag/v1.27.0"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Gitea: Cross-repository issue/comment attachment re-linking can expose private attachment content"
}
GHSA-6C8F-JR82-2H3F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-02 18:32 – Updated: 2026-09-02 18:32A missing permission check in Jenkins Pipeline: Build Step Plugin 599.v4b_67ea_11b_152 and earlier causes downstream builds triggered by the build step to be canceled even when the build's authentication lacks Item/Cancel permission on the downstream job.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-84660"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-02T16:17:30Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A missing permission check in Jenkins Pipeline: Build Step Plugin 599.v4b_67ea_11b_152 and earlier causes downstream builds triggered by the `build` step to be canceled even when the build\u0027s authentication lacks Item/Cancel permission on the downstream job.",
"id": "GHSA-6c8f-jr82-2h3f",
"modified": "2026-09-02T18:32:13Z",
"published": "2026-09-02T18:32:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-84660"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.jenkins.io/security/advisory/2026-09-02/#SECURITY-3870"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L",
"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.