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
19845 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-6XH6-M46Q-MR84
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-27 15:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:34Missing Authorization vulnerability in smackcoders AIO Performance Profiler, Monitor, Optimize, Compress & Debug allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects AIO Performance Profiler, Monitor, Optimize, Compress & Debug: from n/a through 1.2.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-22647"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-03-27T15:15:57Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in smackcoders AIO Performance Profiler, Monitor, Optimize, Compress \u0026 Debug allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects AIO Performance Profiler, Monitor, Optimize, Compress \u0026 Debug: from n/a through 1.2.",
"id": "GHSA-6xh6-m46q-mr84",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:34:09Z",
"published": "2025-03-27T15:31:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-22647"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/all-in-one-performance-accelerator/vulnerability/wordpress-aio-performance-profiler-plugin-1-2-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:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-6XHJ-P29V-82J8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:53 – Updated: 2022-11-22 19:25An authenticated user can execute ALTER TABLE EXCHANGE PARTITIONS without being authorized by Apache Sentry before 2.0.1. This can allow an attacker unauthorized access to the partitioned data of a Sentry protected table and can allow an attacker to remove data from a Sentry protected table.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.sentry:sentry"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.0.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-8028"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-11-22T19:25:07Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2018-08-23T15:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An authenticated user can execute ALTER TABLE EXCHANGE PARTITIONS without being authorized by Apache Sentry before 2.0.1. This can allow an attacker unauthorized access to the partitioned data of a Sentry protected table and can allow an attacker to remove data from a Sentry protected table.",
"id": "GHSA-6xhj-p29v-82j8",
"modified": "2022-11-22T19:25:07Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:53:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-8028"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SENTRY/Vulnerabilities+found+in+Apache+Sentry"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/apache/sentry"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Apache Sentry may allow attacker to access/remove data from Sentry protected table"
}
GHSA-6XHV-RXHV-PWM4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-04 20:35 – Updated: 2026-08-04 20:35Summary
Open WebUI lets a client define a model inline on a chat request instead of selecting a saved workspace model. The knowledge attached to such an inline model was used as-is, without checking that the caller can read what it points at. Any authenticated user who knows another user's file id could therefore have the builtin knowledge tools return that file's indexed content back to them.
Preconditions
Authenticated user of any role, no admin rights needed. The request must carry a session id and use native function calling, which is the default (only function_calling: legacy opts out), and the model's builtin_tools capability must not be disabled (default enabled). The attacker must already know the target file's id; ids are UUIDs and are not enumerable through this path. No admin setting needs to be turned on: enabling Direct Connections is not required for the backend to accept an inline model. Knowledge bases attached this way were never affected, their own access grants were enforced on every path.
Impact
An authenticated user could read the indexed chunks of another user's or group's file, a cross-user confidentiality loss limited to files whose ids the attacker already holds. It is read-only: nothing is modified or deleted, knowledge-base permissions are unaffected, and saved workspace models were already validated at creation time.
Fix
Fixed in 0.11.0 by commit 305880f2e. An inline model's attached knowledge is filtered against the caller's real read access before it is used, dropping any file, knowledge base or note the caller cannot read. Upgrading fully resolves it, no configuration change is required.
Root cause
Affected component: the chat completion, chat completed and chat action endpoints, which accept an inline model definition, and the builtin knowledge tools that consume the model's attached knowledge. Affected setups: all builds from 0.8.8 through 0.10.2.
Saved workspace models have their attached file references validated against the author when the model is created, updated or imported, so a stored model can only carry files its creator can read. An inline model never passes through that path, yet everything downstream treated its attached knowledge with the same trust, including a helper that grants read access to a file purely because the running model claims it as attached knowledge. The missing control was an access check at the point where client-supplied model metadata enters the request.
Credits
Reported by @whyiug.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.10.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "open-webui"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.8.8"
},
{
"fixed": "0.11.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-70487"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-08-04T20:35:53Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\nOpen WebUI lets a client define a model inline on a chat request instead of selecting a saved workspace model. The knowledge attached to such an inline model was used as-is, without checking that the caller can read what it points at. Any authenticated user who knows another user\u0027s file id could therefore have the builtin knowledge tools return that file\u0027s indexed content back to them.\n\n## Preconditions\nAuthenticated user of any role, no admin rights needed. The request must carry a session id and use native function calling, which is the default (only `function_calling: legacy` opts out), and the model\u0027s `builtin_tools` capability must not be disabled (default enabled). The attacker must already know the target file\u0027s id; ids are UUIDs and are not enumerable through this path. No admin setting needs to be turned on: enabling Direct Connections is not required for the backend to accept an inline model. Knowledge bases attached this way were never affected, their own access grants were enforced on every path.\n\n## Impact\nAn authenticated user could read the indexed chunks of another user\u0027s or group\u0027s file, a cross-user confidentiality loss limited to files whose ids the attacker already holds. It is read-only: nothing is modified or deleted, knowledge-base permissions are unaffected, and saved workspace models were already validated at creation time.\n\n## Fix\nFixed in 0.11.0 by commit 305880f2e. An inline model\u0027s attached knowledge is filtered against the caller\u0027s real read access before it is used, dropping any file, knowledge base or note the caller cannot read. Upgrading fully resolves it, no configuration change is required.\n\n## Root cause\nAffected component: the chat completion, chat completed and chat action endpoints, which accept an inline model definition, and the builtin knowledge tools that consume the model\u0027s attached knowledge. Affected setups: all builds from 0.8.8 through 0.10.2.\n\nSaved workspace models have their attached file references validated against the author when the model is created, updated or imported, so a stored model can only carry files its creator can read. An inline model never passes through that path, yet everything downstream treated its attached knowledge with the same trust, including a helper that grants read access to a file purely because the running model claims it as attached knowledge. The missing control was an access check at the point where client-supplied model metadata enters the request.\n\n## Credits\nReported by @whyiug.",
"id": "GHSA-6xhv-rxhv-pwm4",
"modified": "2026-08-04T20:35:53Z",
"published": "2026-08-04T20:35:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/security/advisories/GHSA-6xhv-rxhv-pwm4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/commit/305880f2e2aeb2dda2f4b2a18a20bdcd558f7134"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/releases/tag/v0.11.0"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Open WebUI: Cross-user file content disclosure via request-scoped direct model knowledge metadata"
}
GHSA-6XJG-5QMQ-RH74
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-27 18:31 – Updated: 2026-10-27 18:31Grafana’s RBAC service ignored the requested folder when checking whether a user was a folder administrator for deleted dashboard listings. A user with dashboard permission-management rights on any folder could therefore be treated as an administrator of every folder.
This could expose deleted dashboard items from folders where the user lacked administrative access. The fix requires permission on the specified folder, an ancestor, or a wildcard scope.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-16491"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-27T18:17:37Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Grafana\u2019s RBAC service ignored the requested folder when checking whether a user was a folder administrator for deleted dashboard listings. A user with dashboard permission-management rights on any folder could therefore be treated as an administrator of every folder.\n\nThis could expose deleted dashboard items from folders where the user lacked administrative access. The fix requires permission on the specified folder, an ancestor, or a wildcard scope.",
"id": "GHSA-6xjg-5qmq-rh74",
"modified": "2026-10-27T18:31:53Z",
"published": "2026-10-27T18:31:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-16491"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://grafana.com/security/security-advisories/cve-2026-16491"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-6XJM-FGQG-XJXV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-30 21:32 – Updated: 2026-10-30 21:32Missing Authorization vulnerability in Liquid Web / StellarWP BookIt bookit allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects BookIt: from n/a through 2.6.0.6.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-62019"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-30T19:18:31Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Liquid Web / StellarWP BookIt bookit allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects BookIt: from n/a through 2.6.0.6.",
"id": "GHSA-6xjm-fgqg-xjxv",
"modified": "2026-10-30T21:32:21Z",
"published": "2026-10-30T21:32:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-62019"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/bookit/vulnerability/wordpress-bookit-plugin-2-6-0-6-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:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-6XMR-FMF9-MCM2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-15 09:30 – Updated: 2026-10-15 12:31The Tutor LMS WordPress plugin before 4.1.1 does not perform a capability check in a routine that regenerates its managed pages, allowing unauthenticated users to force-publish unpublished pages and overwrite their content, create missing ones, and change the options that reference them.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-96537"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-15T07:18:03Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Tutor LMS WordPress plugin before 4.1.1 does not perform a capability check in a routine that regenerates its managed pages, allowing unauthenticated users to force-publish unpublished pages and overwrite their content, create missing ones, and change the options that reference them.",
"id": "GHSA-6xmr-fmf9-mcm2",
"modified": "2026-10-15T12:31:02Z",
"published": "2026-10-15T09:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-96537"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/e25ac9a8-a29d-4573-9d04-402a14515fb7"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-6XMV-4QC6-C8XC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-08 09:30 – Updated: 2025-01-08 09:30The AdForest theme for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on several AJAX actions like 'sb_remove_ad' in all versions up to, and including, 5.1.7. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to delete posts, attachments and deactivate a license.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-12855"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-08T09:15:06Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The AdForest theme for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on several AJAX actions like \u0027sb_remove_ad\u0027 in all versions up to, and including, 5.1.7. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to delete posts, attachments and deactivate a license.",
"id": "GHSA-6xmv-4qc6-c8xc",
"modified": "2025-01-08T09:30:38Z",
"published": "2025-01-08T09:30:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-12855"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://themeforest.net/item/adforest-classified-wordpress-theme/19481695"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/db7f5553-758b-47ab-8319-a549b73f4cfa?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-6XPM-7W33-3G9Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-14 09:31 – Updated: 2026-10-14 15:32The LTL Freight Quotes WordPress plugin before 4.2.19 does not perform any authorization check or validation on one of its REST routes that writes to the database, allowing unauthenticated users to modify some of the LTL Freight Quotes WordPress plugin before 4.2.19's stored settings.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-107158"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-14T07:17:01Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The LTL Freight Quotes WordPress plugin before 4.2.19 does not perform any authorization check or validation on one of its REST routes that writes to the database, allowing unauthenticated users to modify some of the LTL Freight Quotes WordPress plugin before 4.2.19\u0027s stored settings.",
"id": "GHSA-6xpm-7w33-3g9q",
"modified": "2026-10-14T15:32:16Z",
"published": "2026-10-14T09:31:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-107158"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/e4c4700a-25c6-4f8f-b017-ea32a81ffcb6"
}
],
"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-6XQ3-9HVX-9QXG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-21 21:32 – Updated: 2026-10-21 21:32The Apache Pulsar broker admin REST API provides endpoints to read, set and remove the topic-level entry filter policy of a topic. For persistent topics these endpoints check that the caller is authorized for the entry filters topic policy operation. The corresponding endpoints for non-persistent topics (/admin/v2/non-persistent/{tenant}/{namespace}/{topic}/entryFilters) do not perform this authorization check. The only authorization check these endpoints perform is an indirect lookup permission check, made while the topic's partition metadata is retrieved; it is present in all affected versions.
As a result, when authentication and authorization are enabled, an authenticated user who has been granted produce or consume permission on a non-persistent topic, or on its namespace, but not permission to manage the topic's policies can read, replace or remove the topic-level entry filter policy of that topic. These operations should be restricted to users with the tenant admin role or the superuser role. This impact analysis assumes that Pulsar has been configured with the default authorization provider. For custom authorization providers, the impact could be slightly different.
The practical impact is limited by two broker configuration requirements, neither of which is met by default:
- Entry filters must have been installed by the operator. Entry filter implementations are loaded only at broker startup from the broker's entry filters directory, which is empty by default. A request can only select among entry filters the operator has already deployed; setting any other filter name is rejected. The issue does not allow a caller to install or load entry filter code or to run arbitrary code in the broker.
- Topic-level entry filter policies must be allowed to override the broker-level configuration (allowOverrideEntryFilters, which is disabled by default). When this setting is disabled, the topic-level entry filter policy has no effect on message dispatch.
In deployments where both conditions are met, an unauthorized user can remove the topic-level entry filter policy of a non-persistent topic, for example one used to restrict which messages are delivered to consumers, or apply a different installed entry filter that withholds messages from subscriptions of that topic. Removing it makes the topic fall back to the namespace-level or broker-level entry filters, which are not removed. A changed policy affects only subscription dispatchers created after the change, for example for new subscriptions or when a subscription is re-created after all of its consumers have disconnected; dispatchers that already exist keep the entry filters they were created with. Because non-persistent topics do not store messages, messages withheld by an entry filter are not delivered. Reading the policy discloses only the names of the configured entry filters. The issue does not allow reading message contents, and entry filters cannot modify message payloads. Persistent topics and namespace-level entry filter policies are not affected. Apache Pulsar versions before 3.3.0 are not affected, because in those versions the entry filters topic policy check is made in code shared by the persistent and non-persistent endpoints.
This issue affects Apache Pulsar versions from 3.3.0 before 4.0.14 and from 4.1.0 before 4.2.5.
- 3.3.x and 4.0.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.0.14.
- 4.1.x and 4.2.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.2.5.
Users operating versions prior to those listed above should upgrade to the aforementioned patched versions or newer versions.
The currently supported Apache Pulsar release lines are 4.0.x and 5.0.x. The supported versions schedule is available at https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/.
Users who cannot upgrade immediately and have deployed entry filters should keep allowOverrideEntryFilters at its default value of false, so that topic-level entry filter policies do not affect message dispatch.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-105932"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-21T19:16:55Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "The Apache Pulsar broker admin REST API provides endpoints to read, set and remove the topic-level entry filter policy of a topic. For persistent topics these endpoints check that the caller is authorized for the entry filters topic policy operation. The corresponding endpoints for non-persistent topics (/admin/v2/non-persistent/{tenant}/{namespace}/{topic}/entryFilters) do not perform this authorization check. The only authorization check these endpoints perform is an indirect lookup permission check, made while the topic\u0027s partition metadata is retrieved; it is present in all affected versions.\n\nAs a result, when authentication and authorization are enabled, an authenticated user who has been granted produce or consume permission on a non-persistent topic, or on its namespace, but not permission to manage the topic\u0027s policies can read, replace or remove the topic-level entry filter policy of that topic. These operations should be restricted to users with the tenant admin role or the superuser role. This impact analysis assumes that Pulsar has been configured with the default authorization provider. For custom authorization providers, the impact could be slightly different.\n\nThe practical impact is limited by two broker configuration requirements, neither of which is met by default:\n\n- Entry filters must have been installed by the operator. Entry filter implementations are loaded only at broker startup from the broker\u0027s entry filters directory, which is empty by default. A request can only select among entry filters the operator has already deployed; setting any other filter name is rejected. The issue does not allow a caller to install or load entry filter code or to run arbitrary code in the broker.\n- Topic-level entry filter policies must be allowed to override the broker-level configuration (allowOverrideEntryFilters, which is disabled by default). When this setting is disabled, the topic-level entry filter policy has no effect on message dispatch.\n\nIn deployments where both conditions are met, an unauthorized user can remove the topic-level entry filter policy of a non-persistent topic, for example one used to restrict which messages are delivered to consumers, or apply a different installed entry filter that withholds messages from subscriptions of that topic. Removing it makes the topic fall back to the namespace-level or broker-level entry filters, which are not removed. A changed policy affects only subscription dispatchers created after the change, for example for new subscriptions or when a subscription is re-created after all of its consumers have disconnected; dispatchers that already exist keep the entry filters they were created with. Because non-persistent topics do not store messages, messages withheld by an entry filter are not delivered. Reading the policy discloses only the names of the configured entry filters. The issue does not allow reading message contents, and entry filters cannot modify message payloads. Persistent topics and namespace-level entry filter policies are not affected. Apache Pulsar versions before 3.3.0 are not affected, because in those versions the entry filters topic policy check is made in code shared by the persistent and non-persistent endpoints.\n\nThis issue affects Apache Pulsar versions from 3.3.0 before 4.0.14 and from 4.1.0 before 4.2.5.\n\n- 3.3.x and 4.0.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.0.14.\n- 4.1.x and 4.2.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.2.5.\n\nUsers operating versions prior to those listed above should upgrade to the aforementioned patched versions or newer versions.\n\nThe currently supported Apache Pulsar release lines are 4.0.x and 5.0.x. The supported versions schedule is available at https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/.\n\nUsers who cannot upgrade immediately and have deployed entry filters should keep allowOverrideEntryFilters at its default value of false, so that topic-level entry filter policies do not affect message dispatch.",
"id": "GHSA-6xq3-9hvx-9qxg",
"modified": "2026-10-21T21:32:32Z",
"published": "2026-10-21T21:32:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-105932"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/y30v2pv2gyj3kn4p1xxmgzfv73x6v1mo"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pulsar.apache.org/security/CVE-2026-105932"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/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-6XQJ-WVGP-RQP8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:33 – Updated: 2023-10-27 13:06Jenkins Ansible Plugin 1.0 and earlier does not perform permission checks in methods implementing form validation.
This allows attackers with Overall/Read permission to enumerate credentials IDs of credentials stored in Jenkins. Those can be used as part of an attack to capture the credentials using another vulnerability.
An enumeration of credentials IDs in Ansible Plugin 1.1 requires the appropriate permissions.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.jenkins-ci.plugins:ansible"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-2310"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-12-22T03:34:18Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2020-11-04T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Jenkins Ansible Plugin 1.0 and earlier does not perform permission checks in methods implementing form validation.\n\nThis allows attackers with Overall/Read permission to enumerate credentials IDs of credentials stored in Jenkins. Those can be used as part of an attack to capture the credentials using another vulnerability.\n\nAn enumeration of credentials IDs in Ansible Plugin 1.1 requires the appropriate permissions.",
"id": "GHSA-6xqj-wvgp-rqp8",
"modified": "2023-10-27T13:06:16Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:33:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-2310"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/ansible-plugin/commit/503be2bc90f78a726ca339ce9aaea044f23db14e"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/ansible-plugin"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.jenkins.io/security/advisory/2020-11-04/#SECURITY-1943"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Missing permission checks in Jenkins Ansible Plugin allow enumerating credentials IDs"
}
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.