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
19894 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-C6V2-3FFM-VCMC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-26 21:29 – Updated: 2026-06-26 21:29Summary
The web UI (/ui/*) does not apply the per-operator CA scoping the JSON API received for GHSA-598g-h2vc-h5vg. Any authenticated non-admin operator (for example, one created via self-registration or OIDC) can access resources belonging to other operators.
Impact
A non-admin operator can:
- Block or delete any other operator's host.
POST /ui/hosts/{id}/blockandDELETE /ui/hosts/{id}act on the URLidwith no ownership check, so a non-admin can block (revoking the host's certificate via the blocklist) or delete any host in the deployment — a cross-operator denial of service. - Read every operator's hosts and networks. The dashboard,
/ui/hosts, the host detail page,/ui/networks(including the create-form error re-render), and the/ui/eventsstream all return data across all operators, exposing host names, Nebula IPs, public IPs, certificate fingerprints and expiry, and network names and CIDRs.
This is the same cross-operator class as GHSA-598g; that remediation covered the JSON API but not the web read/mutation surface. The host create/edit/mobile-bundle/network-create paths and all CA-management routes were already correctly scoped.
Affected handlers (internal/web): handleHostDetail, handleHostBlock, handleHostDelete, handleDashboard, handlePartialStats, handleHosts, handleNetworks, renderNetworksError, handleHostEvents.
Conditions
Exposure requires at least one non-admin operator to exist (self-registration enabled, OIDC, or an admin-created user). A single-admin deployment with no additional operators is not affected.
Fix
A complete candidate fix with regression tests is ready in a private repository shared with the maintainer (ak2k/nebula-mesh-ghsa-web, PR #1): scope these handlers to the session operator's owned CAs (admins keep the full view), mirroring the API's ownership checks.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/juev/nebula-mesh"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "0.3.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-49258"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-639",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-26T21:29:02Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nThe web UI (`/ui/*`) does not apply the per-operator CA scoping the JSON API received for GHSA-598g-h2vc-h5vg. Any authenticated non-admin operator (for example, one created via self-registration or OIDC) can access resources belonging to other operators.\n\n## Impact\n\nA non-admin operator can:\n\n- **Block or delete any other operator\u0027s host.** `POST /ui/hosts/{id}/block` and `DELETE /ui/hosts/{id}` act on the URL `id` with no ownership check, so a non-admin can block (revoking the host\u0027s certificate via the blocklist) or delete any host in the deployment \u2014 a cross-operator denial of service.\n- **Read every operator\u0027s hosts and networks.** The dashboard, `/ui/hosts`, the host detail page, `/ui/networks` (including the create-form error re-render), and the `/ui/events` stream all return data across all operators, exposing host names, Nebula IPs, public IPs, certificate fingerprints and expiry, and network names and CIDRs.\n\nThis is the same cross-operator class as GHSA-598g; that remediation covered the JSON API but not the web read/mutation surface. The host create/edit/mobile-bundle/network-create paths and all CA-management routes were already correctly scoped.\n\nAffected handlers (`internal/web`): `handleHostDetail`, `handleHostBlock`, `handleHostDelete`, `handleDashboard`, `handlePartialStats`, `handleHosts`, `handleNetworks`, `renderNetworksError`, `handleHostEvents`.\n\n## Conditions\n\nExposure requires at least one non-admin operator to exist (self-registration enabled, OIDC, or an admin-created user). A single-admin deployment with no additional operators is not affected.\n\n## Fix\n\nA complete candidate fix with regression tests is ready in a private repository shared with the maintainer (`ak2k/nebula-mesh-ghsa-web`, PR #1): scope these handlers to the session operator\u0027s owned CAs (admins keep the full view), mirroring the API\u0027s ownership checks.",
"id": "GHSA-c6v2-3ffm-vcmc",
"modified": "2026-06-26T21:29:02Z",
"published": "2026-06-26T21:29:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/juev/nebula-mesh/security/advisories/GHSA-c6v2-3ffm-vcmc"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/juev/nebula-mesh"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Nebula Mesh: Web UI lacks ownership checks, enabling cross-operator access to hosts and networks (read, block, delete)"
}
GHSA-C6V2-F464-375Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-11-06 06:31 – Updated: 2025-11-06 06:31The Blog2Social: Social Media Auto Post & Scheduler plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to limited file upload due to an incorrect capability check on theuploadVideo() function in all versions up to, and including, 8.6.0. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to upload mp4 files to the 'wp-content/uploads///' directory.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-12563"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-11-06T05:16:05Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Blog2Social: Social Media Auto Post \u0026 Scheduler plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to limited file upload due to an incorrect capability check on theuploadVideo() function in all versions up to, and including, 8.6.0. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to upload mp4 files to the \u0027wp-content/uploads/\u003cYYYY\u003e/\u003cMM\u003e/\u0027 directory.",
"id": "GHSA-c6v2-f464-375q",
"modified": "2025-11-06T06:31:00Z",
"published": "2025-11-06T06:31:00Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-12563"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3389636/blog2social"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/3710f139-0f17-426c-b48c-4c42ae4bab5f?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-C6VF-XRGP-VWVX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-07 15:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:35Missing Authorization vulnerability in GS Plugins GS Testimonial Slider allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels. This issue affects GS Testimonial Slider: from n/a through 3.3.0.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-47467"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-05-07T15:16:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in GS Plugins GS Testimonial Slider allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels. This issue affects GS Testimonial Slider: from n/a through 3.3.0.",
"id": "GHSA-c6vf-xrgp-vwvx",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:35:02Z",
"published": "2025-05-07T15:31:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-47467"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/gs-testimonial/vulnerability/wordpress-gs-testimonial-slider-3-3-0-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-C6W6-57JJ-62VH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-14 00:04 – Updated: 2026-07-14 00:04Summary
Kimai 2.56.0 contains an authenticated authorization bypass in the timesheet restart and duplicate workflows. After a user loses access to a project, the user can still derive a new timesheet from one of their historical entries and create a new record under that now-unauthorized project and activity combination.
This is a permission revocation bypass with persistent write impact. The issue affects both restart and duplicate, which trust ownership of an old timesheet more than the user's current access to the underlying project, activity, and customer.
Details
The issue affects the following operations:
PATCH /api/timesheets/{id}/restartPATCH /api/timesheets/{id}/duplicate
The root cause is that authorization gives too much weight to the fact that the original timesheet belongs to the current user. In src/Voter/TimesheetVoter.php, the *_own_timesheet branch is evaluated before team-based access checks.
The restart/duplicate capability check also verifies only object visibility, not whether the current user still has team-based access to the referenced objects.
In src/API/TimesheetController.php, the restart flow copies the historical project and activity into a new candidate timesheet.
The duplicate flow similarly clones the historical record and saves it.
In src/Timesheet/TimesheetService.php, creation of a new running entry still relies on isGranted('start', $timesheet).
For historical entries that belong to the current user, this logic can still succeed through the *_own_timesheet branch even after project access has been revoked. As a result, normal creation pages correctly stop offering the revoked project, but restart and duplicate can still create new records under it.
The same weakness also affects the Web duplicate flow because the UI path ultimately calls the same save logic in src/Controller/TimesheetAbstractController.php:
A PoC was provided, but removed for security reasons.
Impact
This vulnerability allows a user to keep writing new time entries into a project after project access has been revoked. That undermines administrative access-control changes and can pollute project time tracking, budget calculations, statistics, reports, and invoicing workflows.
Because both restart and duplicate can reuse historical project/activity bindings, old timesheet records effectively become reusable capability tokens that survive later access-control changes. This is not a UI artifact or a caching problem: new database rows are persisted after revocation.
Solution
The metoid TimesheetVoter::canStart() now checks team access for project and activity. This verification is used for new timesheets and also for the duplication and restart workflows.
See https://www.kimai.org/en/security/ghsa-c6w6-57jj-62vh for more information.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.57.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "kimai/kimai"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.58.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-52822"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-14T00:04:26Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nKimai 2.56.0 contains an authenticated authorization bypass in the timesheet `restart` and `duplicate` workflows. After a user loses access to a project, the user can still derive a new timesheet from one of their historical entries and create a new record under that now-unauthorized project and activity combination.\n\nThis is a permission revocation bypass with persistent write impact. The issue affects both `restart` and `duplicate`, which trust ownership of an old timesheet more than the user\u0027s current access to the underlying project, activity, and customer.\n\n### Details\n\nThe issue affects the following operations:\n\n- `PATCH /api/timesheets/{id}/restart`\n- `PATCH /api/timesheets/{id}/duplicate`\n\nThe root cause is that authorization gives too much weight to the fact that the original timesheet belongs to the current user. In `src/Voter/TimesheetVoter.php`, the `*_own_timesheet` branch is evaluated before team-based access checks.\n\nThe restart/duplicate capability check also verifies only object visibility, not whether the current user still has team-based access to the referenced objects. \n\nIn `src/API/TimesheetController.php`, the restart flow copies the historical `project` and `activity` into a new candidate timesheet.\n\nThe duplicate flow similarly clones the historical record and saves it.\n\nIn `src/Timesheet/TimesheetService.php`, creation of a new running entry still relies on `isGranted(\u0027start\u0027, $timesheet)`.\n\nFor historical entries that belong to the current user, this logic can still succeed through the `*_own_timesheet` branch even after project access has been revoked. As a result, normal creation pages correctly stop offering the revoked project, but `restart` and `duplicate` can still create new records under it.\n\nThe same weakness also affects the Web duplicate flow because the UI path ultimately calls the same save logic in `src/Controller/TimesheetAbstractController.php`:\n\n*A PoC was provided, but removed for security reasons.*\n\n### Impact\n\nThis vulnerability allows a user to keep writing new time entries into a project after project access has been revoked. That undermines administrative access-control changes and can pollute project time tracking, budget calculations, statistics, reports, and invoicing workflows.\n\nBecause both `restart` and `duplicate` can reuse historical project/activity bindings, old timesheet records effectively become reusable capability tokens that survive later access-control changes. This is not a UI artifact or a caching problem: new database rows are persisted after revocation.\n\n# Solution\n\nThe metoid `TimesheetVoter::canStart()` now checks team access for project and activity. This verification is used for new timesheets and also for the `duplication` and `restart` workflows.\n\nSee [https://www.kimai.org/en/security/ghsa-c6w6-57jj-62vh](https://www.kimai.org/en/security/ghsa-c6w6-57jj-62vh) for more information.",
"id": "GHSA-c6w6-57jj-62vh",
"modified": "2026-07-14T00:04:26Z",
"published": "2026-07-14T00:04:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kimai/kimai/security/advisories/GHSA-c6w6-57jj-62vh"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/kimai/kimai"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Improper Authorization in Kimai Timesheet Restart and Duplicate Allows New Timesheets After Project Access Revocation"
}
GHSA-C6WQ-2527-5FPX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-05 12:31 – Updated: 2026-08-05 12:31toner-management's admin state-changing handlers (add.php, edit.php, delete.php under admin/toners, admin/toner-brands, admin/printers, and related admin subdirectories) executed INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE database operations with no authentication or authorization check, while access control was enforced only in listing views. An unauthenticated remote attacker could invoke these handlers directly to create, modify, or destroy application data. The vendor has since merged a fix requiring an authenticated admin session before any such handler proceeds.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-71252"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-05T11:16:28Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "toner-management\u0027s admin state-changing handlers (add.php, edit.php, delete.php under admin/toners, admin/toner-brands, admin/printers, and related admin subdirectories) executed INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE database operations with no authentication or authorization check, while access control was enforced only in listing views. An unauthenticated remote attacker could invoke these handlers directly to create, modify, or destroy application data. The vendor has since merged a fix requiring an authenticated admin session before any such handler proceeds.",
"id": "GHSA-c6wq-2527-5fpx",
"modified": "2026-08-05T12:31:33Z",
"published": "2026-08-05T12:31:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-71252"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/raghav993/toner-management/pull/1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/raghav993/toner-management"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-C6X9-2WM7-RMPP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-01 15:32 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:32Missing Authorization vulnerability in Templately allows Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs.This issue affects Templately: from n/a through 3.1.2.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-47308"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-01T15:15:53Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Templately allows Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs.This issue affects Templately: from n/a through 3.1.2.",
"id": "GHSA-c6x9-2wm7-rmpp",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:32:16Z",
"published": "2024-11-01T15:32:00Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-47308"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/templately/vulnerability/wordpress-templately-plugin-3-1-2-broken-access-control-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/templately/wordpress-templately-plugin-3-1-2-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-C6XX-Q8HC-CW6X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-13 15:34 – Updated: 2026-08-13 15:34Unauthenticated Broken Access Control in SMEPay: UPI Gateway for WooCommerce <= 1.0.5 versions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-66461"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-13T14:17:07Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Unauthenticated Broken Access Control in SMEPay: UPI Gateway for WooCommerce \u003c= 1.0.5 versions.",
"id": "GHSA-c6xx-q8hc-cw6x",
"modified": "2026-08-13T15:34:40Z",
"published": "2026-08-13T15:34:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-66461"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/smepay-for-woocommerce/vulnerability/wordpress-smepay-upi-gateway-for-woocommerce-plugin-1-0-5-payment-bypass-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:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-C73G-R4CP-2XMG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-14 06:31 – Updated: 2026-05-14 06:31GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 15.1 before 18.9.7, 18.10 before 18.10.6, and 18.11 before 18.11.3 that could have allowed an authenticated user with project membership to enumerate private group members due to missing authorization checks.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-8144"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-14T06:16:25Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 15.1 before 18.9.7, 18.10 before 18.10.6, and 18.11 before 18.11.3 that could have allowed an authenticated user with project membership to enumerate private group members due to missing authorization checks.",
"id": "GHSA-c73g-r4cp-2xmg",
"modified": "2026-05-14T06:31:34Z",
"published": "2026-05-14T06:31:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-8144"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://about.gitlab.com/releases/2026/05/13/patch-release-gitlab-18-11-3-released"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/work_items/591964"
}
],
"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-C73Q-FVJV-39J2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-25 18:31 – Updated: 2026-09-25 18:31Missing Authorization in the askpass escape code handler in kitty from 0.25.0 before 0.49.0 allows a local user other than the one running the terminal to obtain the text typed into a prompt that kitty itself displays, because handle_remote_askpass() in kitty/window.py opens the POSIX shared memory object named in the escape code, parses a prompt definition out of it, and writes the user's answer back into an object of that same name, without at any point checking that the object is owned by the user running kitty or that its permissions exclude other users. The equivalent consumer of the same SharedMemory class in the ssh kitten performs exactly that check; the askpass path did not. The handler is reached through a device control string processed from the byte stream of the window, so the attacker must also cause bytes of their choosing to be displayed by the victim's terminal. Where the POSIX shared memory namespace is shared between the two users, a second local user can create an object with permissions that allow the victim to read and write it, cause the victim's kitty to render a prompt of the attacker's choosing, including a masked password prompt, and read the typed secret back out of the object afterwards. The prompt text is additionally passed to the display without control character sanitisation, so it can overwrite the warning line kitty prints above it. The answer is written by reopening an object of that name when the user answers, rather than through the handle already held. This results in disclosure of a secret typed by the victim to a second local user, and does not require any privilege on the victim's account.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-95835"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-25T17:17:20Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization in the askpass escape code handler in kitty from 0.25.0 before 0.49.0 allows a local user other than the one running the terminal to obtain the text typed into a prompt that kitty itself displays, because handle_remote_askpass() in kitty/window.py opens the POSIX shared memory object named in the escape code, parses a prompt definition out of it, and writes the user\u0027s answer back into an object of that same name, without at any point checking that the object is owned by the user running kitty or that its permissions exclude other users. The equivalent consumer of the same SharedMemory class in the ssh kitten performs exactly that check; the askpass path did not. The handler is reached through a device control string processed from the byte stream of the window, so the attacker must also cause bytes of their choosing to be displayed by the victim\u0027s terminal. Where the POSIX shared memory namespace is shared between the two users, a second local user can create an object with permissions that allow the victim to read and write it, cause the victim\u0027s kitty to render a prompt of the attacker\u0027s choosing, including a masked password prompt, and read the typed secret back out of the object afterwards. The prompt text is additionally passed to the display without control character sanitisation, so it can overwrite the warning line kitty prints above it. The answer is written by reopening an object of that name when the user answers, rather than through the handle already held. This results in disclosure of a secret typed by the victim to a second local user, and does not require any privilege on the victim\u0027s account.",
"id": "GHSA-c73q-fvjv-39j2",
"modified": "2026-09-25T18:31:28Z",
"published": "2026-09-25T18:31:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-95835"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kovidgoyal/kitty/commit/3281919056c442e4ba6f5abed7ee2c5130de31ff"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kovidgoyal/kitty/releases/tag/v0.49.0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://secur0.com/en/cna/cve-list/cve-2026-95835-kitty-askpass-shared-memory-ownership"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:H/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-C744-86VR-W8F4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-15 21:30 – Updated: 2026-06-15 21:30Subscriber Broken Access Control in Motors < 1.4.107 versions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-39515"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-15T21:16:46Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Subscriber Broken Access Control in Motors \u003c 1.4.107 versions.",
"id": "GHSA-c744-86vr-w8f4",
"modified": "2026-06-15T21:30:44Z",
"published": "2026-06-15T21:30:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-39515"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/motors-car-dealership-classified-listings/vulnerability/wordpress-motors-plugin-1-4-107-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:N/A:H",
"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.