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-72FW-CQH5-F324
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-18 20:31 – Updated: 2026-06-18 20:31Summary
memory-wiki shared search could miss session visibility checks. In affected versions, a caller able to search shared memory could skip the session visibility guard on the affected search path.
This advisory is scoped to the named feature and configuration. It does not change OpenClaw's trusted-operator model: authenticated Gateway operators, installed plugins, and intentional local execution surfaces remain trusted unless a separate policy, approval, allowlist, sandbox, or auth boundary is crossed.
Impact
When the affected feature is enabled and reachable, this could return memory entries that should not have been visible to that session. Practical impact depends on the operator's configuration and whether lower-trust input can reach that path.
Patched Versions
The first stable patched version is 2026.4.29.
Mitigations
limit shared memory search to trusted operators until patched. As general hardening, keep channel and tool allowlists narrow, avoid sharing one Gateway between mutually untrusted users, and disable the affected feature when it is not needed.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2026.4.27"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "openclaw"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2026.4.29"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-53844"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-18T20:31:46Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nmemory-wiki shared search could miss session visibility checks. In affected versions, a caller able to search shared memory could skip the session visibility guard on the affected search path.\n\nThis advisory is scoped to the named feature and configuration. It does not change OpenClaw\u0027s trusted-operator model: authenticated Gateway operators, installed plugins, and intentional local execution surfaces remain trusted unless a separate policy, approval, allowlist, sandbox, or auth boundary is crossed.\n\n### Impact\n\nWhen the affected feature is enabled and reachable, this could return memory entries that should not have been visible to that session. Practical impact depends on the operator\u0027s configuration and whether lower-trust input can reach that path.\n\n### Patched Versions\n\nThe first stable patched version is `2026.4.29`.\n\n### Mitigations\n\nlimit shared memory search to trusted operators until patched. As general hardening, keep channel and tool allowlists narrow, avoid sharing one Gateway between mutually untrusted users, and disable the affected feature when it is not needed.",
"id": "GHSA-72fw-cqh5-f324",
"modified": "2026-06-18T20:31:46Z",
"published": "2026-06-18T20:31:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-72fw-cqh5-f324"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-53844"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-session-visibility-check-bypass-in-shared-memory-search"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "OpenClaw: memory-wiki shared search could miss session visibility checks"
}
GHSA-72H8-WP98-7HCH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-22 20:36 – Updated: 2026-09-22 20:36Summary
Multiple authorization vulnerabilities in Unleash admin API, including a critical missing await that completely bypasses a permission check.
Vulnerability 1: Missing await on Permission Check (HIGH)
File: src/lib/features/segment/segment-controller.ts (line 345)
POST /api/admin/segments/strategies has permission: NONE at the route level. The handler performs its own check via this.accessService.hasPermission(), but omits the await keyword. Since hasPermission() is async (returns Promise<boolean>), the variable always receives a truthy Promise object. The if (!hasFeatureStrategyPermission) check never triggers.
// BUG: missing await - hasPermission() returns Promise<boolean>
const hasFeatureStrategyPermission = this.accessService.hasPermission(
req.user, UPDATE_FEATURE_STRATEGY, projectId, environmentId,
);
if (!hasFeatureStrategyPermission) { // Always false - Promise is truthy!
res.status(403).send();
return;
}
Impact: Any authenticated user can modify segment assignments on ANY strategy across ALL projects.
Fix: Add await: const hasFeatureStrategyPermission = await this.accessService.hasPermission(...)
Vulnerability 2: Cross-Project Variant Read (MEDIUM)
File: src/lib/routes/admin-api/project/variants.ts (line 213-223)
GET /api/admin/projects/:projectId/features/:featureName/environments/:environment/variants completely ignores projectId. getVariantsOnEnv() only uses featureName and environment.
Impact: Any authenticated user can read variant configs (names, weights, payloads) from any project.
Vulnerability 3: Cross-Project Strategy Read (MEDIUM)
File: src/lib/features/feature-toggle/feature-toggle-controller.ts (line 1107-1116)
GET .../strategies/:strategyId ignores all params except strategyId. Any authenticated user can read any strategy's full configuration.
Vulnerability 4: Cross-Project Environment Info Leak (MEDIUM)
File: src/lib/features/feature-toggle/feature-toggle-service.ts (line 1611)
getEnvironmentInfo() doesn't validate feature belongs to project. Compare with getFeature() which calls validateFeatureBelongsToProject().
Vulnerability 5: Cross-Project Tag Modification (LOW)
File: src/lib/features/feature-toggle/feature-toggle-controller.ts (line 576-596)
PUT /:projectId/tags accepts features array in body without validating they belong to projectId.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "unleash-server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "8.0.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-77426"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-639",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-09-22T20:36:42Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nMultiple authorization vulnerabilities in Unleash admin API, including a critical missing `await` that completely bypasses a permission check.\n\n## Vulnerability 1: Missing `await` on Permission Check (HIGH)\n\n**File:** `src/lib/features/segment/segment-controller.ts` (line 345)\n\n`POST /api/admin/segments/strategies` has `permission: NONE` at the route level. The handler performs its own check via `this.accessService.hasPermission()`, but **omits the `await` keyword**. Since `hasPermission()` is async (returns `Promise\u003cboolean\u003e`), the variable always receives a truthy Promise object. The `if (!hasFeatureStrategyPermission)` check never triggers.\n\n```typescript\n// BUG: missing await - hasPermission() returns Promise\u003cboolean\u003e\nconst hasFeatureStrategyPermission = this.accessService.hasPermission(\n req.user, UPDATE_FEATURE_STRATEGY, projectId, environmentId,\n);\nif (!hasFeatureStrategyPermission) { // Always false - Promise is truthy!\n res.status(403).send();\n return;\n}\n```\n\n**Impact:** Any authenticated user can modify segment assignments on ANY strategy across ALL projects.\n\n**Fix:** Add `await`: `const hasFeatureStrategyPermission = await this.accessService.hasPermission(...)`\n\n## Vulnerability 2: Cross-Project Variant Read (MEDIUM)\n\n**File:** `src/lib/routes/admin-api/project/variants.ts` (line 213-223)\n\n`GET /api/admin/projects/:projectId/features/:featureName/environments/:environment/variants` completely ignores `projectId`. `getVariantsOnEnv()` only uses `featureName` and `environment`.\n\n**Impact:** Any authenticated user can read variant configs (names, weights, payloads) from any project.\n\n## Vulnerability 3: Cross-Project Strategy Read (MEDIUM)\n\n**File:** `src/lib/features/feature-toggle/feature-toggle-controller.ts` (line 1107-1116)\n\n`GET .../strategies/:strategyId` ignores all params except `strategyId`. Any authenticated user can read any strategy\u0027s full configuration.\n\n## Vulnerability 4: Cross-Project Environment Info Leak (MEDIUM)\n\n**File:** `src/lib/features/feature-toggle/feature-toggle-service.ts` (line 1611)\n\n`getEnvironmentInfo()` doesn\u0027t validate feature belongs to project. Compare with `getFeature()` which calls `validateFeatureBelongsToProject()`.\n\n## Vulnerability 5: Cross-Project Tag Modification (LOW)\n\n**File:** `src/lib/features/feature-toggle/feature-toggle-controller.ts` (line 576-596)\n\n`PUT /:projectId/tags` accepts features array in body without validating they belong to projectId.",
"id": "GHSA-72h8-wp98-7hch",
"modified": "2026-09-22T20:36:42Z",
"published": "2026-09-22T20:36:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/security/advisories/GHSA-72h8-wp98-7hch"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/commit/7bb2829fc40791aa478e8ffca149c11b0f9cb05a"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/commit/ace121c922d2e3eb6f68d95b0b6ab2fc8d824ea1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/commit/bea7effd3687425630423f662136d548e100154d"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/commit/c93a963e95e1b7bf1bca2a7729282a48d0eb2f6a"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/commit/dd61d0e10f5977a2e5de78df467c3a17c09fbcef"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/Unleash/unleash"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/releases/tag/v8.0.3"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Unleash: Missing await on permission check + cross-project IDOR in admin API"
}
GHSA-72HV-Q97X-RW7P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-10 03:31 – Updated: 2026-04-10 03:31The UsersWP – Front-end login form, User Registration, User Profile & Members Directory plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Improper Access Control in all versions up to, and including, 1.2.58 This is due to insufficient field-level permission validation in the upload_file_remove() AJAX handler where the $htmlvar parameter is not validated against a whitelist of allowed fields or checked against the field's for_admin_use property. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level access and above, to clear or reset any restricted usermeta column for their own user record, including fields marked as "For admin use only", bypassing intended field-level access restrictions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-4977"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-10T02:16:03Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The UsersWP \u2013 Front-end login form, User Registration, User Profile \u0026 Members Directory plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Improper Access Control in all versions up to, and including, 1.2.58 This is due to insufficient field-level permission validation in the upload_file_remove() AJAX handler where the $htmlvar parameter is not validated against a whitelist of allowed fields or checked against the field\u0027s for_admin_use property. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level access and above, to clear or reset any restricted usermeta column for their own user record, including fields marked as \"For admin use only\", bypassing intended field-level access restrictions.",
"id": "GHSA-72hv-q97x-rw7p",
"modified": "2026-04-10T03:31:10Z",
"published": "2026-04-10T03:31:10Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-4977"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/userswp/tags/1.2.54/includes/class-forms.php#L2251"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/userswp/tags/1.2.54/includes/class-forms.php#L2274"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/userswp/tags/1.2.54/includes/class-meta.php#L165"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/userswp/trunk/includes/class-forms.php#L2251"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/userswp/trunk/includes/class-forms.php#L2274"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/userswp/trunk/includes/class-meta.php#L165"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?old_path=%2Fuserswp/tags/1.2.58\u0026new_path=%2Fuserswp/tags/1.2.59"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/efee685c-e2cd-471b-aea9-607124df6006?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-72HV-VF28-V4JH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-25 00:00 – Updated: 2022-09-27 00:00A information disclosure vulnerability exists in Rocket.Chat <v5 where the getUserMentionsByChannel meteor server method discloses messages from private channels and direct messages regardless of the users access permission to the room.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-35249"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-200",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-09-23T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A information disclosure vulnerability exists in Rocket.Chat \u003cv5 where the getUserMentionsByChannel meteor server method discloses messages from private channels and direct messages regardless of the users access permission to the room.",
"id": "GHSA-72hv-vf28-v4jh",
"modified": "2022-09-27T00:00:17Z",
"published": "2022-09-25T00:00:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-35249"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/1410246"
}
],
"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-72JF-7XVF-M9RH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-22 21:30 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:36Missing Authorization vulnerability in VW THEMES Ibtana allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels. This issue affects Ibtana: from n/a through 1.2.5.3.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-59581"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-22T19:16:26Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in VW THEMES Ibtana allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels. This issue affects Ibtana: from n/a through 1.2.5.3.",
"id": "GHSA-72jf-7xvf-m9rh",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:36:20Z",
"published": "2025-09-22T21:30:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-59581"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/ibtana-visual-editor/vulnerability/wordpress-ibtana-plugin-1-2-5-3-arbitrary-content-deletion-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:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-72PC-MW67-6F3F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-29 03:30 – Updated: 2025-04-29 15:31An access issue was addressed with improved access restrictions. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.4, tvOS 18.4, macOS Ventura 13.7.5, iPadOS 17.7.6, macOS Sonoma 14.7.5, iOS 18.4 and iPadOS 18.4, visionOS 2.4. An unauthenticated user on the same network as a signed-in Mac could send it AirPlay commands without pairing.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-24271"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-306",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-29T03:15:34Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An access issue was addressed with improved access restrictions. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.4, tvOS 18.4, macOS Ventura 13.7.5, iPadOS 17.7.6, macOS Sonoma 14.7.5, iOS 18.4 and iPadOS 18.4, visionOS 2.4. An unauthenticated user on the same network as a signed-in Mac could send it AirPlay commands without pairing.",
"id": "GHSA-72pc-mw67-6f3f",
"modified": "2025-04-29T15:31:51Z",
"published": "2025-04-29T03:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-24271"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122371"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122372"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122373"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122374"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122375"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122377"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122378"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-72PG-72HH-VVPX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-05-23 06:30 – Updated: 2026-04-08 18:33The Brizy – Page Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized plugin setting update due to a missing capability check on the functions action_request_disable, action_change_template, and action_request_enable in all versions up to, and including, 2.4.43. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor access or above, to enable/disable the Brizy editor and modify the template used.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-3711"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-05-23T06:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Brizy \u2013 Page Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized plugin setting update due to a missing capability check on the functions action_request_disable, action_change_template, and action_request_enable in all versions up to, and including, 2.4.43. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor access or above, to enable/disable the Brizy editor and modify the template used.",
"id": "GHSA-72pg-72hh-vvpx",
"modified": "2026-04-08T18:33:14Z",
"published": "2024-05-23T06:30:45Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-3711"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/brizy/trunk/admin/main.php"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail=\u0026reponame=\u0026new=3086506%40brizy%2Ftrunk\u0026old=3058896%40brizy%2Ftrunk\u0026sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail="
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/7092ce4a-bad9-4426-b94e-d9d688344272?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-72QJ-8CCG-957V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-14 21:31 – Updated: 2026-09-16 18:31A validation issue existed in the entitlement verification. This issue was addressed with improved validation of the process entitlement. This issue is fixed in macOS Golden Gate 27, macOS Sequoia 15.8, macOS Tahoe 26.7. A malicious app may be able to break out of its sandbox.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-65381"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-14T21:17:22Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "A validation issue existed in the entitlement verification. This issue was addressed with improved validation of the process entitlement. This issue is fixed in macOS Golden Gate 27, macOS Sequoia 15.8, macOS Tahoe 26.7. A malicious app may be able to break out of its sandbox.",
"id": "GHSA-72qj-8ccg-957v",
"modified": "2026-09-16T18:31:30Z",
"published": "2026-09-14T21:31:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-65381"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/149035"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/149042"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/149043"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-72QV-3P6Q-GFC7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-09 15:31 – Updated: 2026-04-28 21:35Missing Authorization vulnerability in LuckyWP LuckyWP Scripts Control allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects LuckyWP Scripts Control: from n/a through 1.2.1.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-29239"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-09T13:15:26Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in LuckyWP LuckyWP Scripts Control allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects LuckyWP Scripts Control: from n/a through 1.2.1.",
"id": "GHSA-72qv-3p6q-gfc7",
"modified": "2026-04-28T21:35:17Z",
"published": "2024-12-09T15:31:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-29239"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/luckywp-scripts-control/vulnerability/wordpress-luckywp-scripts-control-plugin-1-2-1-broken-access-control-csrf-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:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-72VV-Q34X-GFFG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-30 06:32 – Updated: 2026-11-06 15:31Missing Authorization vulnerability in Drupal OAuth2 Token Manager allows Forceful Browsing. This issue affects OAuth2 Token Manager versions: from 0.0.0 to 1.2.0.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-118573"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-30T04:18:23Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Drupal OAuth2 Token Manager allows Forceful Browsing. This issue affects OAuth2 Token Manager versions: from 0.0.0 to 1.2.0.",
"id": "GHSA-72vv-q34x-gffg",
"modified": "2026-11-06T15:31:19Z",
"published": "2026-10-30T06:32:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-118573"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.drupal.org/sa-contrib-2026-290"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
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.