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
19853 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-7CW2-VVG5-H9PJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-24 06:31 – Updated: 2026-04-24 06:31The HM Books Gallery plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Missing Authorization in versions up to and including 4.8.0. This is due to the absence of capability checks and nonce verification in the admin_init hook that handles the permalink settings update at line 205-209 of wp-books-gallery.php. The vulnerable code checks only for the presence of the 'permalink_structure' POST parameter before updating the 'wbg_cpt_slug' option, without verifying that the request comes from an authenticated administrator. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify the custom post type slug for the books gallery, which changes the URL structure for all book entries and can break existing links and SEO rankings.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-5347"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-24T06:16:04Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The HM Books Gallery plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Missing Authorization in versions up to and including 4.8.0. This is due to the absence of capability checks and nonce verification in the admin_init hook that handles the permalink settings update at line 205-209 of wp-books-gallery.php. The vulnerable code checks only for the presence of the \u0027permalink_structure\u0027 POST parameter before updating the \u0027wbg_cpt_slug\u0027 option, without verifying that the request comes from an authenticated administrator. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify the custom post type slug for the books gallery, which changes the URL structure for all book entries and can break existing links and SEO rankings.",
"id": "GHSA-7cw2-vvg5-h9pj",
"modified": "2026-04-24T06:31:17Z",
"published": "2026-04-24T06:31:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-5347"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wp-books-gallery/tags/4.7.8/wp-books-gallery.php#L206"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wp-books-gallery/tags/4.7.8/wp-books-gallery.php#L207"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wp-books-gallery/tags/4.8.1/wp-books-gallery.php#L207"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wp-books-gallery/trunk/wp-books-gallery.php#L206"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wp-books-gallery/trunk/wp-books-gallery.php#L207"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/12bf1cd8-cd55-4771-b2bb-597797b1b949?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7CWH-6W47-PJ4W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-11 06:31 – Updated: 2026-07-11 06:31The Solace Extra plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versions up to, and including, 1.5.3. This is due to the plugin not properly verifying that a user is authorized to perform an action. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to permanently delete all content previously imported via the Starter Template feature, including posts, pages, media attachments, WooCommerce products, taxonomy terms, and sitebuilder templates. The required nonce is emitted on every wp-admin page via wp_localize_script() hooked to admin_enqueue_scripts without a page guard, meaning any Subscriber visiting /wp-admin/profile.php can obtain it; the handler is additionally registered via wp_ajax_nopriv_, making it reachable by fully unauthenticated users as well.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-13250"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-11T05:16:32Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Solace Extra plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versions up to, and including, 1.5.3. This is due to the plugin not properly verifying that a user is authorized to perform an action. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to permanently delete all content previously imported via the Starter Template feature, including posts, pages, media attachments, WooCommerce products, taxonomy terms, and sitebuilder templates. The required nonce is emitted on every wp-admin page via wp_localize_script() hooked to admin_enqueue_scripts without a page guard, meaning any Subscriber visiting /wp-admin/profile.php can obtain it; the handler is additionally registered via wp_ajax_nopriv_, making it reachable by fully unauthenticated users as well.",
"id": "GHSA-7cwh-6w47-pj4w",
"modified": "2026-07-11T06:31:16Z",
"published": "2026-07-11T06:31:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-13250"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/solace-extra/tags/1.5.1/admin/class-solace-extra-admin.php#L287"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/solace-extra/tags/1.5.1/admin/import.php#L1424"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/solace-extra/tags/1.5.1/includes/class-solace-extra.php#L313"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/solace-extra/tags/1.5.3/admin/class-solace-extra-admin.php#L287"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/solace-extra/tags/1.5.3/admin/import.php#L1424"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/solace-extra/tags/1.5.3/includes/class-solace-extra.php#L313"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?reponame=\u0026old=3593408%40solace-extra\u0026new=3593408%40solace-extra"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/860747b9-46ab-4c97-af36-f2e104043be0?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7CWP-F67Q-C45V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-17 18:35 – Updated: 2026-06-17 18:35Subscriber Broken Access Control in MetForm Pro <= 3.9.1 versions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-24610"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-17T13:20:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Subscriber Broken Access Control in MetForm Pro \u003c= 3.9.1 versions.",
"id": "GHSA-7cwp-f67q-c45v",
"modified": "2026-06-17T18:35:47Z",
"published": "2026-06-17T18:35:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-24610"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/metform-pro/vulnerability/wordpress-metform-pro-plugin-3-9-1-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-7CX3-2QX2-3G6W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-06 20:12 – Updated: 2026-05-06 20:12Summary
The TagController::delete() endpoint at DELETE /admin/api/content/tags/{tagId} only verifies that the user is logged in (userIsAuthenticated()), but does not check any permission. Any authenticated user — including regular non-admin frontend users — can delete any tag by ID. This contrasts with TagController::update() and TagController::search(), which both enforce the FAQ_EDIT permission.
Details
In phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/Controller/Administration/Api/TagController.php, the delete() method (line 121-133) uses only $this->userIsAuthenticated():
#[Route(path: 'content/tags/{tagId}', name: 'admin.api.content.tags.id', methods: ['DELETE'])]
public function delete(Request $request): JsonResponse
{
$this->userIsAuthenticated(); // Only checks isLoggedIn() — no permission check
$tagId = (int) Filter::filterVar($request->attributes->get('tagId'), FILTER_VALIDATE_INT);
if ($this->tags->delete($tagId)) {
return $this->json(['success' => Translation::get(key: 'ad_tag_delete_success')], Response::HTTP_OK);
}
return $this->json(['error' => Translation::get(key: 'ad_tag_delete_error')], Response::HTTP_BAD_REQUEST);
}
Compare with update() (line 48-71) which properly enforces authorization:
public function update(Request $request): JsonResponse
{
$this->userHasPermission(PermissionType::FAQ_EDIT); // Proper permission check
// ... also verifies CSRF token ...
}
The userIsAuthenticated() method in AbstractController (line 258-263) only checks $this->currentUser->isLoggedIn():
protected function userIsAuthenticated(): void
{
if (!$this->currentUser->isLoggedIn()) {
throw new UnauthorizedHttpException(challenge: 'User is not authenticated.');
}
}
There is no admin-level middleware in the Kernel — it registers only RouterListener, LanguageListener, ControllerContainerListener, and exception listeners. The admin API entry point (admin/api/index.php) shares the same bootstrap and session as the frontend, meaning a frontend user's session cookie is valid for admin API requests.
Additionally, this endpoint lacks CSRF token verification (unlike update()), though the primary issue is the missing authorization since the attack vector is a logged-in user acting directly.
PoC
# Step 1: Register as a regular user on the phpMyFAQ frontend
# (or use any existing non-admin authenticated session)
# Step 2: As the authenticated non-admin user, delete tag with ID 1:
curl -X DELETE 'https://target.com/admin/api/content/tags/1' \
-H 'Cookie: PHPSESSID=<regular_user_session>'
# Expected: 401 or 403 (user lacks FAQ_EDIT permission)
# Actual: 200 OK with {"success": "..."}
# Step 3: Enumerate and delete all tags:
for i in $(seq 1 100); do
curl -s -X DELETE "https://target.com/admin/api/content/tags/$i" \
-H 'Cookie: PHPSESSID=<regular_user_session>'
done
Impact
Any authenticated user (including regular frontend users who registered through the public registration form) can delete all tags in the phpMyFAQ instance. This results in:
- Data integrity loss: Tags are permanently deleted from the database. All FAQ-to-tag associations are destroyed.
- Disruption of FAQ organization: Tag-based navigation, filtering, and tag clouds become empty or broken.
- No recoverability without backup: Deleted tags and their associations cannot be restored without a database backup.
The impact is limited to tags (not FAQ content itself), but in large installations with extensive tag taxonomies, this could significantly degrade usability.
Recommended Fix
Add the FAQ_EDIT permission check and CSRF token verification to TagController::delete(), consistent with TagController::update():
#[Route(path: 'content/tags/{tagId}', name: 'admin.api.content.tags.id', methods: ['DELETE'])]
public function delete(Request $request): JsonResponse
{
$this->userHasPermission(PermissionType::FAQ_EDIT);
$tagId = (int) Filter::filterVar($request->attributes->get('tagId'), FILTER_VALIDATE_INT);
if ($this->tags->delete($tagId)) {
return $this->json(['success' => Translation::get(key: 'ad_tag_delete_success')], Response::HTTP_OK);
}
return $this->json(['error' => Translation::get(key: 'ad_tag_delete_error')], Response::HTTP_BAD_REQUEST);
}
At minimum, add $this->userHasPermission(PermissionType::FAQ_EDIT) to enforce the same authorization as the update and search endpoints. Consider also adding a dedicated TAG_DELETE permission type for more granular access control.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 4.1.1"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.1.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 4.1.1"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "thorsten/phpmyfaq"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.1.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-06T20:12:07Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nThe `TagController::delete()` endpoint at `DELETE /admin/api/content/tags/{tagId}` only verifies that the user is logged in (`userIsAuthenticated()`), but does not check any permission. Any authenticated user \u2014 including regular non-admin frontend users \u2014 can delete any tag by ID. This contrasts with `TagController::update()` and `TagController::search()`, which both enforce the `FAQ_EDIT` permission.\n\n## Details\n\nIn `phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/Controller/Administration/Api/TagController.php`, the `delete()` method (line 121-133) uses only `$this-\u003euserIsAuthenticated()`:\n\n```php\n#[Route(path: \u0027content/tags/{tagId}\u0027, name: \u0027admin.api.content.tags.id\u0027, methods: [\u0027DELETE\u0027])]\npublic function delete(Request $request): JsonResponse\n{\n $this-\u003euserIsAuthenticated(); // Only checks isLoggedIn() \u2014 no permission check\n\n $tagId = (int) Filter::filterVar($request-\u003eattributes-\u003eget(\u0027tagId\u0027), FILTER_VALIDATE_INT);\n\n if ($this-\u003etags-\u003edelete($tagId)) {\n return $this-\u003ejson([\u0027success\u0027 =\u003e Translation::get(key: \u0027ad_tag_delete_success\u0027)], Response::HTTP_OK);\n }\n\n return $this-\u003ejson([\u0027error\u0027 =\u003e Translation::get(key: \u0027ad_tag_delete_error\u0027)], Response::HTTP_BAD_REQUEST);\n}\n```\n\nCompare with `update()` (line 48-71) which properly enforces authorization:\n\n```php\npublic function update(Request $request): JsonResponse\n{\n $this-\u003euserHasPermission(PermissionType::FAQ_EDIT); // Proper permission check\n // ... also verifies CSRF token ...\n}\n```\n\nThe `userIsAuthenticated()` method in `AbstractController` (line 258-263) only checks `$this-\u003ecurrentUser-\u003eisLoggedIn()`:\n\n```php\nprotected function userIsAuthenticated(): void\n{\n if (!$this-\u003ecurrentUser-\u003eisLoggedIn()) {\n throw new UnauthorizedHttpException(challenge: \u0027User is not authenticated.\u0027);\n }\n}\n```\n\nThere is no admin-level middleware in the `Kernel` \u2014 it registers only RouterListener, LanguageListener, ControllerContainerListener, and exception listeners. The admin API entry point (`admin/api/index.php`) shares the same bootstrap and session as the frontend, meaning a frontend user\u0027s session cookie is valid for admin API requests.\n\nAdditionally, this endpoint lacks CSRF token verification (unlike `update()`), though the primary issue is the missing authorization since the attack vector is a logged-in user acting directly.\n\n## PoC\n\n```bash\n# Step 1: Register as a regular user on the phpMyFAQ frontend\n# (or use any existing non-admin authenticated session)\n\n# Step 2: As the authenticated non-admin user, delete tag with ID 1:\ncurl -X DELETE \u0027https://target.com/admin/api/content/tags/1\u0027 \\\n -H \u0027Cookie: PHPSESSID=\u003cregular_user_session\u003e\u0027\n\n# Expected: 401 or 403 (user lacks FAQ_EDIT permission)\n# Actual: 200 OK with {\"success\": \"...\"}\n\n# Step 3: Enumerate and delete all tags:\nfor i in $(seq 1 100); do\n curl -s -X DELETE \"https://target.com/admin/api/content/tags/$i\" \\\n -H \u0027Cookie: PHPSESSID=\u003cregular_user_session\u003e\u0027\ndone\n```\n\n## Impact\n\nAny authenticated user (including regular frontend users who registered through the public registration form) can delete all tags in the phpMyFAQ instance. This results in:\n\n- **Data integrity loss:** Tags are permanently deleted from the database. All FAQ-to-tag associations are destroyed.\n- **Disruption of FAQ organization:** Tag-based navigation, filtering, and tag clouds become empty or broken.\n- **No recoverability without backup:** Deleted tags and their associations cannot be restored without a database backup.\n\nThe impact is limited to tags (not FAQ content itself), but in large installations with extensive tag taxonomies, this could significantly degrade usability.\n\n## Recommended Fix\n\nAdd the `FAQ_EDIT` permission check and CSRF token verification to `TagController::delete()`, consistent with `TagController::update()`:\n\n```php\n#[Route(path: \u0027content/tags/{tagId}\u0027, name: \u0027admin.api.content.tags.id\u0027, methods: [\u0027DELETE\u0027])]\npublic function delete(Request $request): JsonResponse\n{\n $this-\u003euserHasPermission(PermissionType::FAQ_EDIT);\n\n $tagId = (int) Filter::filterVar($request-\u003eattributes-\u003eget(\u0027tagId\u0027), FILTER_VALIDATE_INT);\n\n if ($this-\u003etags-\u003edelete($tagId)) {\n return $this-\u003ejson([\u0027success\u0027 =\u003e Translation::get(key: \u0027ad_tag_delete_success\u0027)], Response::HTTP_OK);\n }\n\n return $this-\u003ejson([\u0027error\u0027 =\u003e Translation::get(key: \u0027ad_tag_delete_error\u0027)], Response::HTTP_BAD_REQUEST);\n}\n```\n\nAt minimum, add `$this-\u003euserHasPermission(PermissionType::FAQ_EDIT)` to enforce the same authorization as the update and search endpoints. Consider also adding a dedicated `TAG_DELETE` permission type for more granular access control.",
"id": "GHSA-7cx3-2qx2-3g6w",
"modified": "2026-05-06T20:12:07Z",
"published": "2026-05-06T20:12:07Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/thorsten/phpMyFAQ/security/advisories/GHSA-7cx3-2qx2-3g6w"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/thorsten/phpMyFAQ"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "phpMyFAQ\u0027s Missing Authorization on Tag Deletion Allows Any Authenticated User to Delete Tags"
}
GHSA-7CXR-96QF-MM4Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-11-07 18:31 – Updated: 2026-11-07 18:31Missing Authorization vulnerability in PluginUs.Net FOX woocommerce-currency-switcher allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects FOX: from n/a through 1.5.6.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-123461"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-11-07T18:17:20Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in PluginUs.Net FOX woocommerce-currency-switcher allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects FOX: from n/a through 1.5.6.",
"id": "GHSA-7cxr-96qf-mm4q",
"modified": "2026-11-07T18:31:38Z",
"published": "2026-11-07T18:31:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-123461"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/woocommerce-currency-switcher/vulnerability/wordpress-fox-plugin-1-5-6-broken-access-control-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7CXR-WPQ9-9FW9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-15 21:30 – Updated: 2026-06-15 21:30Unauthenticated Broken Access Control in JS Help Desk <= 3.0.9 versions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-48887"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-15T21:17:17Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Unauthenticated Broken Access Control in JS Help Desk \u003c= 3.0.9 versions.",
"id": "GHSA-7cxr-wpq9-9fw9",
"modified": "2026-06-15T21:30:49Z",
"published": "2026-06-15T21:30:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-48887"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/js-support-ticket/vulnerability/wordpress-js-help-desk-plugin-3-0-9-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-7F25-VHJ7-MXRC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-24 00:31 – Updated: 2026-04-24 00:31OpenClaw before 2026.3.28 contains an agentic consent bypass vulnerability allowing LLM agents to silently disable execution approval via config.patch parameter. Remote attackers can exploit this to bypass security controls and execute unauthorized operations without user consent.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-41349"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-23T22:16:41Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "OpenClaw before 2026.3.28 contains an agentic consent bypass vulnerability allowing LLM agents to silently disable execution approval via config.patch parameter. Remote attackers can exploit this to bypass security controls and execute unauthorized operations without user consent.",
"id": "GHSA-7f25-vhj7-mxrc",
"modified": "2026-04-24T00:31:51Z",
"published": "2026-04-24T00:31:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-v3qc-wrwx-j3pw"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-41349"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/76411b2afc4ae721e36c12e0ea24fd23e2fed61e"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-agentic-consent-bypass-via-config-patch"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-7F3J-54J2-WRV7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-13 15:30 – Updated: 2026-04-28 21:35Missing Authorization vulnerability in Stanislav Kuznetsov QR code MeCard/vCard generator allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects QR code MeCard/vCard generator: from n/a through 1.6.0.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-38477"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-13T15:15:19Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Stanislav Kuznetsov QR code MeCard/vCard generator allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects QR code MeCard/vCard generator: from n/a through 1.6.0.",
"id": "GHSA-7f3j-54j2-wrv7",
"modified": "2026-04-28T21:35:24Z",
"published": "2024-12-13T15:30:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-38477"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/wp-qrcode-me-v-card/vulnerability/wordpress-qr-code-mecard-vcard-generator-plugin-1-5-6-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-7F42-QFJ5-3W48
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-06-06 15:30 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:35Missing Authorization vulnerability in OLIVESYSTEM 診断ジェネレータ作成プラグイン allows Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs. This issue affects 診断ジェネレータ作成プラグイン: from n/a through 1.4.16.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-30934"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-06-06T13:15:34Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in OLIVESYSTEM \u8a3a\u65ad\u30b8\u30a7\u30cd\u30ec\u30fc\u30bf\u4f5c\u6210\u30d7\u30e9\u30b0\u30a4\u30f3 allows Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs. This issue affects \u8a3a\u65ad\u30b8\u30a7\u30cd\u30ec\u30fc\u30bf\u4f5c\u6210\u30d7\u30e9\u30b0\u30a4\u30f3: from n/a through 1.4.16.",
"id": "GHSA-7f42-qfj5-3w48",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:35:19Z",
"published": "2025-06-06T15:30:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-30934"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/os-diagnosis-generator/vulnerability/wordpress-1-4-16-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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7F48-X47W-F5P2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-04-05 21:30 – Updated: 2023-04-12 03:30The WCFM Membership plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification and access of data in versions up to, and including, 2.10.0 due to missing capability checks on various AJAX actions. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to perform a wide variety of actions such as modifying membership details, changing renewal information, controlling membership approvals, and more.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-4940"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-04-05T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The WCFM Membership plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification and access of data in versions up to, and including, 2.10.0 due to missing capability checks on various AJAX actions. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to perform a wide variety of actions such as modifying membership details, changing renewal information, controlling membership approvals, and more.",
"id": "GHSA-7f48-x47w-f5p2",
"modified": "2023-04-12T03:30:26Z",
"published": "2023-04-05T21:30:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-4940"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail=\u0026reponame=\u0026old=2605020%40wc-multivendor-membership\u0026new=2605020%40wc-multivendor-membership\u0026sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail="
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail=\u0026reponame=\u0026old=2632641%40wc-multivendor-membership\u0026new=2632641%40wc-multivendor-membership\u0026sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail="
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail=\u0026reponame=\u0026old=2633191%40wc-multivendor-membership\u0026new=2633191%40wc-multivendor-membership\u0026sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail="
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/9c6577a2-6722-4d3b-958d-1143dca414cd?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/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.