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
19891 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-9VM9-FM4P-MCPM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-11 03:31 – Updated: 2026-03-11 03:31The MC4WP: Mailchimp for WordPress plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Missing Authorization in all versions up to, and including, 4.11.1. This is due to the plugin trusting the _mc4wp_action POST parameter without validation, allowing unauthenticated attackers to force the form to process unsubscribe actions instead of subscribe actions. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to arbitrarily unsubscribe any email address from the connected Mailchimp audience via the _mc4wp_action parameter, granted they can obtain the form ID (which is publicly exposed in the HTML source).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-1781"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-11T02:16:03Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The MC4WP: Mailchimp for WordPress plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Missing Authorization in all versions up to, and including, 4.11.1. This is due to the plugin trusting the `_mc4wp_action` POST parameter without validation, allowing unauthenticated attackers to force the form to process unsubscribe actions instead of subscribe actions. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to arbitrarily unsubscribe any email address from the connected Mailchimp audience via the `_mc4wp_action` parameter, granted they can obtain the form ID (which is publicly exposed in the HTML source).",
"id": "GHSA-9vm9-fm4p-mcpm",
"modified": "2026-03-11T03:31:27Z",
"published": "2026-03-11T03:31:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-1781"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ibericode/mailchimp-for-wordpress/commit/5fdebc2a5e22d11287d011697a6b09331bd96fa5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/862.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/mailchimp-for-wp/tags/4.11.1/includes/forms/class-form-listener.php#L207"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/mailchimp-for-wp/tags/4.11.1/includes/forms/class-form-listener.php#L53"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/mailchimp-for-wp/tags/4.11.1/includes/forms/class-form.php#L461"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail=\u0026reponame=\u0026new=3477825%40mailchimp-for-wp%2Ftrunk\u0026old=3443118%40mailchimp-for-wp%2Ftrunk\u0026sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail="
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/10262aa9-5656-4a2b-aeb5-060018798369?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:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-9VMR-6CPV-XPW5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-09 00:30 – Updated: 2024-11-18 18:30sunniwell HT3300 before 1.0.0.B022.2 is vulnerable to Insecure Permissions. The /usr/local/bin/update program, which is responsible for updating the software in the HT3300 device, is given the execution mode of sudo NOPASSWD. This program is vulnerable to a command injection vulnerability, which could allow an attacker to pass commands to this program via command line arguments to gain elevated root privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-48073"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-08T22:15:20Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "sunniwell HT3300 before 1.0.0.B022.2 is vulnerable to Insecure Permissions. The /usr/local/bin/update program, which is responsible for updating the software in the HT3300 device, is given the execution mode of sudo NOPASSWD. This program is vulnerable to a command injection vulnerability, which could allow an attacker to pass commands to this program via command line arguments to gain elevated root privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-9vmr-6cpv-xpw5",
"modified": "2024-11-18T18:30:47Z",
"published": "2024-11-09T00:30:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-48073"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/Giles-one/56f677b96aab5a67fbe31dd41fd1303d"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Giles-one/sunniwellHT3300PrivilegeEscalation"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-9VMX-VW24-6XJ9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-09 18:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:36Missing Authorization vulnerability in awesomesupport Awesome Support. This issue affects Awesome Support: from n/a through 6.3.4.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-53340"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-09T17:15:48Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in awesomesupport Awesome Support. This issue affects Awesome Support: from n/a through 6.3.4.",
"id": "GHSA-9vmx-vw24-6xj9",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:36:08Z",
"published": "2025-09-09T18:31:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-53340"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/awesome-support/vulnerability/wordpress-awesome-support-plugin-plugin-6-3-4-sensitive-data-exposure-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-9VPV-6R96-4P4X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-07 18:30 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:33Missing Authorization vulnerability in Lenderd 1003 Mortgage Application allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects 1003 Mortgage Application: from n/a through 1.87.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-22591"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-07T16:15:55Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Lenderd 1003 Mortgage Application allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects 1003 Mortgage Application: from n/a through 1.87.",
"id": "GHSA-9vpv-6r96-4p4x",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:33:05Z",
"published": "2025-01-07T18:30:52Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-22591"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/1003-mortgage-application/vulnerability/wordpress-1003-mortgage-application-plugin-1-87-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-9VQ2-W47Q-3PJH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-10-28 21:30 – Updated: 2026-04-02 21:31A path deletion vulnerability was addressed by preventing vulnerable code from running with privileges. This issue is fixed in macOS Ventura 13.7.1, macOS Sonoma 14.7.1. An app may be able to bypass Privacy preferences.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-44156"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-10-28T21:15:05Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A path deletion vulnerability was addressed by preventing vulnerable code from running with privileges. This issue is fixed in macOS Ventura 13.7.1, macOS Sonoma 14.7.1. An app may be able to bypass Privacy preferences.",
"id": "GHSA-9vq2-w47q-3pjh",
"modified": "2026-04-02T21:31:57Z",
"published": "2024-10-28T21:30:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-44156"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/121564"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/121568"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/121570"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2024/Oct/11"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2024/Oct/12"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2024/Oct/13"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-9VQ9-CP9W-6MXV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-09 15:31 – Updated: 2026-04-28 21:35Missing Authorization vulnerability in Damir Calusic WP users media allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects WP users media: from n/a through 4.2.3.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-27428"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-09T13:15:24Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Damir Calusic WP users media allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects WP users media: from n/a through 4.2.3.",
"id": "GHSA-9vq9-cp9w-6mxv",
"modified": "2026-04-28T21:35:17Z",
"published": "2024-12-09T15:31:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-27428"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/wp-users-media/vulnerability/wordpress-wp-users-media-plugin-4-2-3-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:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-9VRM-747R-668V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-12-13 18:31 – Updated: 2023-12-18 23:39Jenkins Nexus Platform Plugin 3.18.0-03 and earlier does not perform permission checks in methods implementing form validation.
This allows attackers with Overall/Read permission to send an HTTP request to an attacker-specified URL and parse the response as XML.
Additionally, the plugin does not configure its XML parser to prevent XML external entity (XXE) attacks, so attackers can have Jenkins parse a crafted XML response that uses external entities for extraction of secrets from the Jenkins controller or server-side request forgery.
Additionally, these form validation methods do not require POST requests, resulting in a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability.
Nexus Platform Plugin 3.18.1-01 configures its XML parser to prevent XML external entity (XXE) attacks.
Additionally, POST requests and Overall/Administer permission are required for the affected HTTP endpoints.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.sonatype.nexus.ci:nexus-jenkins-plugin"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.18.1-01"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-50767"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-12-18T23:39:41Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-12-13T18:15:43Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Jenkins Nexus Platform Plugin 3.18.0-03 and earlier does not perform permission checks in methods implementing form validation.\n\nThis allows attackers with Overall/Read permission to send an HTTP request to an attacker-specified URL and parse the response as XML.\n\nAdditionally, the plugin does not configure its XML parser to prevent XML external entity (XXE) attacks, so attackers can have Jenkins parse a crafted XML response that uses external entities for extraction of secrets from the Jenkins controller or server-side request forgery.\n\nAdditionally, these form validation methods do not require POST requests, resulting in a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability.\n\nNexus Platform Plugin 3.18.1-01 configures its XML parser to prevent XML external entity (XXE) attacks.\n\nAdditionally, POST requests and Overall/Administer permission are required for the affected HTTP endpoints.",
"id": "GHSA-9vrm-747r-668v",
"modified": "2023-12-18T23:39:41Z",
"published": "2023-12-13T18:31:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-50767"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/nexus-platform-plugin/pull/291"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/nexus-platform-plugin/commit/1d5e1e9e457af5e8ce8c9a403933d6cb73542dbd"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/nexus-platform-plugin"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.jenkins.io/security/advisory/2023-12-13/#SECURITY-3204"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/12/13/4"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Jenkins Nexus Platform Plugin missing permission check"
}
GHSA-9VRQ-RWR6-5XWW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-08 06:30 – Updated: 2025-01-08 06:30The Ultimate WordPress Toolkit – WP Extended plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Remote Code Execution in version 3.0.11. This is due to a missing capability check on the 'wpext_handle_snippet_update' function. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to execute code on the server providing an admin has created at least one code snippet.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-11816"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-08T04:15:06Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Ultimate WordPress Toolkit \u2013 WP Extended plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Remote Code Execution in version 3.0.11. This is due to a missing capability check on the \u0027wpext_handle_snippet_update\u0027 function. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to execute code on the server providing an admin has created at least one code snippet.",
"id": "GHSA-9vrq-rwr6-5xww",
"modified": "2025-01-08T06:30:54Z",
"published": "2025-01-08T06:30:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-11816"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wpextended/trunk/includes/modules/core_extensions/wpext_snippets/wpext_snippets.php#L705"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail=\u0026reponame=\u0026old=3213331%40wpextended\u0026new=3213331%40wpextended\u0026sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail="
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/b3ce53e5-8666-4227-83d3-58f35db0ce68?source=cve"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-9VVH-QMJX-P4Q8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-08 19:45 – Updated: 2026-05-15 23:52Base Model Routing Bypasses Access Control via Model Chaining
Affected Component
Model chaining via base_model_id:
- backend/open_webui/routers/models.py (lines 170-214, create_new_model)
- backend/open_webui/routers/models.py (lines 254-308, import_models)
- backend/open_webui/main.py (lines 1696-1711, base model resolution in chat completion)
- backend/open_webui/routers/openai.py (lines 1032-1037, base model payload rewrite)
- backend/open_webui/routers/ollama.py (lines 1086-1090, base model payload rewrite)
- backend/open_webui/utils/models.py (line 380, check_model_access — checks user-facing model only)
Affected Versions
Current main branch (commit 6fdd19bf1) and likely all versions with the model chaining (base_model_id) feature.
Description
Open WebUI supports model composition via base_model_id: a user-defined model (e.g., "Cheap Assistant") can reference an existing base model (e.g., "gpt-4-turbo-restricted") that provides the actual inference capability. When a user queries the composed model, the access control pipeline verifies the user has access to the composed model but never re-verifies access to the chained base model.
Additionally, the model creation and import endpoints accept arbitrary base_model_id values without checking that the caller has access to that base model. Combined, this allows any user with the default model creation permission to create a model that chains to a restricted base model — and then invoke it, causing the server to dispatch the request to the restricted base model using the admin-configured API key.
# utils/models.py:380 — access check runs against the user-facing model only
def check_model_access(user, model):
if user.role == 'user':
...check access grants on `model`...
# main.py:1696-1711 — base model resolved without access check
base_model = request.app.state.MODELS.get(model.info.base_model_id)
if base_model:
# payload["model"] is rewritten to base_model.id
# but no check_model_access(user, base_model) is performed
# openai.py:1032-1037 / ollama.py:1086-1090 — the rewritten payload is dispatched
payload['model'] = base_model_id
Attack Scenario
- Admin provisions a premium/restricted model
gpt-4-turbo-restrictedand configures access grants so only the "ML Engineers" group can use it. - Attacker (a regular user not in that group) calls:
POST /api/v1/models/create { "id": "cheap-assistant", "name": "Cheap Assistant", "base_model_id": "gpt-4-turbo-restricted", "params": {}, "meta": {} }The creation endpoint does not validate the attacker's access togpt-4-turbo-restricted. - Attacker now owns
cheap-assistant.check_model_access(attacker, cheap-assistant)passes trivially because they are the owner. - Attacker sends:
POST /api/chat/completions {"model": "cheap-assistant", "messages": [...]} - At
main.py:1696, the pipeline resolvescheap-assistant.base_model_idtogpt-4-turbo-restricted, rewritespayload["model"]to the base model ID, and dispatches the upstream request with the admin-configured API key for the backend. - The attacker receives responses from the restricted model, bypassing the access grant policy.
The same bypass is available via the import endpoint, which additionally allows overwriting existing models (see related finding on model import ownership).
Impact
- Regular users can query restricted models by chaining through a self-owned wrapper model
- Access control on
gpt-4-turbo-restricted(or equivalent paid/tiered/internal models) becomes silently ineffective - Direct cost impact on pay-per-token backends (OpenAI, Anthropic, Azure) — the admin's API key is used for requests the admin intended to forbid
- Creates a false sense of security — the admin sees access restrictions work through the standard model selector but not through user-created chains
Preconditions
- Attacker must have model creation permission (default
workspace.modelspermission, granted to all users by default) - A restricted base model must exist on the instance (the target of the chain)
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.8.12"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "open-webui"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.9.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-44555"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-08T19:45:03Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-15T20:16:46Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "# Base Model Routing Bypasses Access Control via Model Chaining\n\n## Affected Component\n\nModel chaining via `base_model_id`:\n- `backend/open_webui/routers/models.py` (lines 170-214, `create_new_model`)\n- `backend/open_webui/routers/models.py` (lines 254-308, `import_models`)\n- `backend/open_webui/main.py` (lines 1696-1711, base model resolution in chat completion)\n- `backend/open_webui/routers/openai.py` (lines 1032-1037, base model payload rewrite)\n- `backend/open_webui/routers/ollama.py` (lines 1086-1090, base model payload rewrite)\n- `backend/open_webui/utils/models.py` (line 380, `check_model_access` \u2014 checks user-facing model only)\n\n## Affected Versions\n\nCurrent main branch (commit `6fdd19bf1`) and likely all versions with the model chaining (`base_model_id`) feature.\n\n## Description\n\nOpen WebUI supports model composition via `base_model_id`: a user-defined model (e.g., \"Cheap Assistant\") can reference an existing base model (e.g., \"gpt-4-turbo-restricted\") that provides the actual inference capability. When a user queries the composed model, the access control pipeline verifies the user has access to the composed model but never re-verifies access to the chained base model.\n\nAdditionally, the model creation and import endpoints accept arbitrary `base_model_id` values without checking that the caller has access to that base model. Combined, this allows any user with the default model creation permission to create a model that chains to a restricted base model \u2014 and then invoke it, causing the server to dispatch the request to the restricted base model using the admin-configured API key.\n\n```python\n# utils/models.py:380 \u2014 access check runs against the user-facing model only\ndef check_model_access(user, model):\n if user.role == \u0027user\u0027:\n ...check access grants on `model`...\n\n# main.py:1696-1711 \u2014 base model resolved without access check\nbase_model = request.app.state.MODELS.get(model.info.base_model_id)\nif base_model:\n # payload[\"model\"] is rewritten to base_model.id\n # but no check_model_access(user, base_model) is performed\n\n# openai.py:1032-1037 / ollama.py:1086-1090 \u2014 the rewritten payload is dispatched\npayload[\u0027model\u0027] = base_model_id\n```\n\n## Attack Scenario\n\n1. Admin provisions a premium/restricted model `gpt-4-turbo-restricted` and configures access grants so only the \"ML Engineers\" group can use it.\n2. Attacker (a regular user not in that group) calls:\n ```\n POST /api/v1/models/create\n {\n \"id\": \"cheap-assistant\",\n \"name\": \"Cheap Assistant\",\n \"base_model_id\": \"gpt-4-turbo-restricted\",\n \"params\": {},\n \"meta\": {}\n }\n ```\n The creation endpoint does not validate the attacker\u0027s access to `gpt-4-turbo-restricted`.\n3. Attacker now owns `cheap-assistant`. `check_model_access(attacker, cheap-assistant)` passes trivially because they are the owner.\n4. Attacker sends:\n ```\n POST /api/chat/completions\n {\"model\": \"cheap-assistant\", \"messages\": [...]}\n ```\n5. At `main.py:1696`, the pipeline resolves `cheap-assistant.base_model_id` to `gpt-4-turbo-restricted`, rewrites `payload[\"model\"]` to the base model ID, and dispatches the upstream request with the admin-configured API key for the backend.\n6. The attacker receives responses from the restricted model, bypassing the access grant policy.\n\nThe same bypass is available via the import endpoint, which additionally allows overwriting existing models (see related finding on model import ownership).\n\n## Impact\n\n- Regular users can query restricted models by chaining through a self-owned wrapper model\n- Access control on `gpt-4-turbo-restricted` (or equivalent paid/tiered/internal models) becomes silently ineffective\n- Direct cost impact on pay-per-token backends (OpenAI, Anthropic, Azure) \u2014 the admin\u0027s API key is used for requests the admin intended to forbid\n- Creates a false sense of security \u2014 the admin sees access restrictions work through the standard model selector but not through user-created chains\n\n## Preconditions\n\n- Attacker must have model creation permission (default `workspace.models` permission, granted to all users by default)\n- A restricted base model must exist on the instance (the target of the chain)",
"id": "GHSA-9vvh-qmjx-p4q8",
"modified": "2026-05-15T23:52:32Z",
"published": "2026-05-08T19:45:03Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/security/advisories/GHSA-9vvh-qmjx-p4q8"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-44555"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Open WebUI\u0027s Base Model Routing Bypasses Access Control via Model Chaining"
}
GHSA-9VVJ-RGFC-V888
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-29 15:30 – Updated: 2026-10-29 15:30Missing Authorization vulnerability in Kaliforms Kali Forms kali-forms allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Kali Forms: from n/a through 2.4.27.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-39782"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-29T14:17:54Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Kaliforms Kali Forms kali-forms allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Kali Forms: from n/a through 2.4.27.",
"id": "GHSA-9vvj-rgfc-v888",
"modified": "2026-10-29T15:30:53Z",
"published": "2026-10-29T15:30:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-39782"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/kali-forms/vulnerability/wordpress-kali-forms-plugin-2-4-27-broken-access-control-vulnerability-2?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
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.