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
19955 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-FG67-VP54-V2CW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-15 21:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:35Missing Authorization vulnerability in Automattic Tours.This issue affects Tours: from n/a through 1.0.0.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-51666"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-05-15T19:15:56Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Automattic Tours.This issue affects Tours: from n/a through 1.0.0.",
"id": "GHSA-fg67-vp54-v2cw",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:35:05Z",
"published": "2025-05-15T21:31:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-51666"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/tours/vulnerability/wordpress-tours-plugin-1-0-0-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-FG97-672Q-6CHV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-20 18:31 – Updated: 2026-02-25 18:31Missing Authorization vulnerability in GhostPool Gauge gauge allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Gauge: from n/a through <= 6.56.4.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-69298"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-20T16:22:16Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in GhostPool Gauge gauge allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Gauge: from n/a through \u003c= 6.56.4.",
"id": "GHSA-fg97-672q-6chv",
"modified": "2026-02-25T18:31:28Z",
"published": "2026-02-20T18:31:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-69298"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Theme/gauge/vulnerability/wordpress-gauge-theme-6-56-4-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:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FG9C-FH23-JCMV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-01-18 15:30 – Updated: 2023-01-25 21:30BlogEngine.NET v3.3.8.0 allows an attacker to create any folder with "files" prefix under ~/App_Data/.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-41417"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-20",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-01-18T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "BlogEngine.NET v3.3.8.0 allows an attacker to create any folder with \"files\" prefix under ~/App_Data/.",
"id": "GHSA-fg9c-fh23-jcmv",
"modified": "2023-01-25T21:30:18Z",
"published": "2023-01-18T15:30:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-41417"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/BlogEngine/BlogEngine.NET/commit/7f927567db94462ffd37e128c0a53c11c1f81a8d"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/tree-chtsec/22a0a531ea188fd5b76fe11d32f41e95"
}
],
"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-FGCW-GCM9-Q689
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-30 09:30 – Updated: 2024-04-30 09:30The ACF Front End Editor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the update_texts() function in all versions up to, and including, 2.0.2. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level access and above, to update arbitrary post title, content, and ACF data.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-3072"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-30T09:15:07Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The ACF Front End Editor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the update_texts() function in all versions up to, and including, 2.0.2. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level access and above, to update arbitrary post title, content, and ACF data.",
"id": "GHSA-fgcw-gcm9-q689",
"modified": "2024-04-30T09:30:46Z",
"published": "2024-04-30T09:30:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-3072"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/acf-front-end-editor/trunk/public/class-acf-front-end-editor-public.php#L225"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/8e7cbe45-5dd5-4b8f-8504-a52358156838?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-FGGP-VVQP-GP2F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-23 06:31 – Updated: 2026-09-23 12:31The Forminator Forms WordPress plugin before 1.57.2.1 does not perform a nonce, capability or ownership check before running a one-time payment-field migration during the construction of one of its admin screens, and that construction happens on every wp-admin request for any logged-in user. Any authenticated user, including a Subscriber with no permissions in the Forminator Forms WordPress plugin before 1.57.2.1, can therefore rewrite the saved field configuration of any form on the site, including a live payment form.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-87069"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-23T06:17:04Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "The Forminator Forms WordPress plugin before 1.57.2.1 does not perform a nonce, capability or ownership check before running a one-time payment-field migration during the construction of one of its admin screens, and that construction happens on every wp-admin request for any logged-in user. Any authenticated user, including a Subscriber with no permissions in the Forminator Forms WordPress plugin before 1.57.2.1, can therefore rewrite the saved field configuration of any form on the site, including a live payment form.",
"id": "GHSA-fggp-vvqp-gp2f",
"modified": "2026-09-23T12:31:10Z",
"published": "2026-09-23T06:31:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-87069"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/cf14469d-eb14-4ab0-acdd-318a6c9d5d92"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FGGR-P59V-2MCV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-19 18:31 – Updated: 2026-02-26 21:31Missing Authorization vulnerability in AresIT WP Compress wp-compress-image-optimizer allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects WP Compress: from n/a through <= 6.60.28.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-25370"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-19T09:16:19Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in AresIT WP Compress wp-compress-image-optimizer allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects WP Compress: from n/a through \u003c= 6.60.28.",
"id": "GHSA-fggr-p59v-2mcv",
"modified": "2026-02-26T21:31:28Z",
"published": "2026-02-19T18:31:52Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-25370"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/wp-compress-image-optimizer/vulnerability/wordpress-wp-compress-plugin-6-60-28-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-FGGW-QCX2-VR8W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-06 15:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:32Missing Authorization vulnerability in brandtoss WP Mailster allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects WP Mailster: from n/a through 1.8.16.0.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-53805"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-06T14:15:22Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in brandtoss WP Mailster allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects WP Mailster: from n/a through 1.8.16.0.",
"id": "GHSA-fggw-qcx2-vr8w",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:32:41Z",
"published": "2024-12-06T15:31:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-53805"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/wp-mailster/vulnerability/wordpress-wp-mailster-plugin-1-8-16-0-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:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FGMM-C43R-4VVC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-31 09:30 – Updated: 2025-10-31 09:30The The Events Calendar plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized access due to a missing capability check on the 'tec_qr_code_modal' AJAX endpoint in all versions up to, and including, 6.15.9. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to view draft event names and generate/view QR codes for them.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-12175"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-31T09:15:46Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The The Events Calendar plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized access due to a missing capability check on the \u0027tec_qr_code_modal\u0027 AJAX endpoint in all versions up to, and including, 6.15.9. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to view draft event names and generate/view QR codes for them.",
"id": "GHSA-fgmm-c43r-4vvc",
"modified": "2025-10-31T09:30:26Z",
"published": "2025-10-31T09:30:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-12175"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/the-events-calendar/the-events-calendar/blob/main/src/Events/QR/QR_Code.php"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3386042/the-events-calendar/tags/6.15.10/src/Events/QR/QR_Code.php"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/ab844a05-80e0-42c7-981c-dea3a18cf4d5?source=cve"
}
],
"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-FGMR-7W36-9QFQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-04 21:02 – Updated: 2026-09-04 21:02CVE: This vulnerability corresponds to CVE-2026-72796.
Summary
Several static-file routes in the server mux (kernel/server/serve.go) are registered with CheckAuth only and serve directories directly, without the publish-access checks, sensitive-path blocklist, or refuseToAccess rules that the REST API applies to the same data. They are therefore reachable by the publish RoleReader token and by the anonymous account when Publish.Auth.Enable is false.
Most notably, /templates/ serves data/templates a directory the REST file API explicitly refuses to serve to non-administrators.
Details
| Route | Registration | Guard | Exposed to a reader |
|---|---|---|---|
/templates/* (line 424) |
Group("/templates/", model.CheckAuth).Static("", data/templates) |
none beyond path cleaning | the templates directory |
/snippets/* (line 434) |
CheckAuth |
blocks only conf.json |
any snippet's JS/CSS content by name |
/widgets/, /plugins/, /emojis/ (409/414/419) |
Group(CheckAuth).Static(dir) |
none | whole directory trees |
/export/* (line 320) |
Group("/export/", CheckAuth) |
traversal, sensitive-path and DEK guards: no publish check | export artifacts (PDF/HTML/DOCX/CSV) |
/templates/ directly contradicts an existing control. The REST file path runs refuseToAccess (kernel/api/file.go:551-553), which explicitly returns 403 for data/templates/ to non-administrators the project has already decided readers must not read templates. The /templates/ static route serves that same directory to any RoleReader, with no IsSensitivePath check, no publish-access check, and no refuseToAccess. Templates are user-authored Markdown documents containing template/Sprig syntax and are not covered by publish-access controls. gin's .Static disables directory listing, so a filename is required but the contradiction with refuseToAccess is the defect.
/export/ versus /assets/. /assets/*path (line 692) correctly gates non-administrators via CheckAbsPathAccessableByPublishAccess, plus IsSensitivePath and encrypted-asset handling. /export/ carries traversal, sensitive-path and DEK guards but no publish-access check, so a reader can retrieve export artifacts of arbitrary documents, including private ones. Artifact naming is mixed, some use a random export ID, but code and CSV exports use the document name (export/code/<name>, export/csv/<name>/<name>.csv), which a reader can derive from listDocsByPath titles while the artifact exists. This path is therefore conditional.
Confirmed correctly gated, for contrast: /assets/* (publish-gated), /history/* and /repo/diff/* (CheckAdminRole), /debug/pprof/* (disabled in production builds), /public/ (intentionally public).
All four routes above were verified to carry CheckAuth only, no CheckReadonly, no CheckAdminRole.
Proof of Concept
Precondition: publish mode enabled (default port 6808), anonymous when Publish.Auth.Enable is false, otherwise any publish reader account.
Templates: served despite the REST API refusing them:
GET http://127.0.0.1:6808/templates/<template-file>.md
→ 200, template content
The equivalent REST request is refused:
POST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/file/getFile
{"path":"data/templates/<template-file>.md"}
→ 403 (refuseToAccess)
The same reader session obtains the file through the static route.
Snippets:
GET http://127.0.0.1:6808/snippets/<snippet-name>.js
→ 200, snippet source
Export artifacts (conditional on a predictable name while the artifact exists):
GET http://127.0.0.1:6808/export/csv/<doc-name>/<doc-name>.csv
→ 200, exported content of a document the reader has no publish access to
Impact
An anonymous reader (publish mode with auth disabled) or any publish RoleReader can read user-authored template documents that the REST API explicitly withholds from non-administrators, snippet source (JS/CSS), and the contents of the widgets, plugins and emoji directories. Where an export artifact exists under a derivable name, they can additionally retrieve exported content of documents outside their publish scope. Confidentiality-only.
Suggested fix
Apply the same treatment these routes' REST counterparts already receive: for non-administrator roles, enforce publish-access scoping plus IsSensitivePath and the refuseToAccess blocklist on the static routes, mirroring /assets/*. Alternatively, block /templates/, non-public /snippets/, and /export/ for reader roles entirely.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.0.0-20260725122641-34be6c0bb073"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-72796"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-09-04T21:02:22Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "**CVE:** This vulnerability corresponds to [CVE-2026-72796](https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-72796).\n\n### Summary\n\nSeveral static-file routes in the server mux (`kernel/server/serve.go`) are registered with `CheckAuth` only and serve directories directly, without the publish-access checks, sensitive-path blocklist, or `refuseToAccess` rules that the REST API applies to the same data. They are therefore reachable by the publish `RoleReader` token and by the anonymous account when `Publish.Auth.Enable` is `false`.\n\nMost notably, `/templates/` serves `data/templates` a directory the REST file API explicitly refuses to serve to non-administrators.\n\n### Details\n\n| Route | Registration | Guard | Exposed to a reader |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| `/templates/*` (line 424) | `Group(\"/templates/\", model.CheckAuth).Static(\"\", data/templates)` | none beyond path cleaning | the templates directory |\n| `/snippets/*` (line 434) | `CheckAuth` | blocks only `conf.json` | any snippet\u0027s JS/CSS content by name |\n| `/widgets/`, `/plugins/`, `/emojis/` (409/414/419) | `Group(CheckAuth).Static(dir)` | none | whole directory trees |\n| `/export/*` (line 320) | `Group(\"/export/\", CheckAuth)` | traversal, sensitive-path and DEK guards: **no publish check** | export artifacts (PDF/HTML/DOCX/CSV) |\n\n**`/templates/` directly contradicts an existing control.** The REST file path runs `refuseToAccess` (`kernel/api/file.go:551-553`), which explicitly returns 403 for `data/templates/` to non-administrators the project has already decided readers must not read templates. The `/templates/` static route serves that same directory to any `RoleReader`, with no `IsSensitivePath` check, no publish-access check, and no `refuseToAccess`. Templates are user-authored Markdown documents containing template/Sprig syntax and are not covered by publish-access controls. `gin`\u0027s `.Static` disables directory listing, so a filename is required but the contradiction with `refuseToAccess` is the defect.\n\n**`/export/` versus `/assets/`.** `/assets/*path` (line 692) correctly gates non-administrators via `CheckAbsPathAccessableByPublishAccess`, plus `IsSensitivePath` and encrypted-asset handling. `/export/` carries traversal, sensitive-path and DEK guards but no publish-access check, so a reader can retrieve export artifacts of arbitrary documents, including private ones. Artifact naming is mixed, some use a random export ID, but code and CSV exports use the document name (`export/code/\u003cname\u003e`, `export/csv/\u003cname\u003e/\u003cname\u003e.csv`), which a reader can derive from `listDocsByPath` titles while the artifact exists. This path is therefore conditional.\n\n**Confirmed correctly gated, for contrast:** `/assets/*` (publish-gated), `/history/*` and `/repo/diff/*` (`CheckAdminRole`), `/debug/pprof/*` (disabled in production builds), `/public/` (intentionally public).\n\nAll four routes above were verified to carry `CheckAuth` only, no `CheckReadonly`, no `CheckAdminRole`.\n\n### Proof of Concept\n\nPrecondition: publish mode enabled (default port 6808), anonymous when `Publish.Auth.Enable` is `false`, otherwise any publish reader account.\n\n**Templates: served despite the REST API refusing them:**\n```\nGET http://127.0.0.1:6808/templates/\u003ctemplate-file\u003e.md\n\u2192 200, template content\n```\nThe equivalent REST request is refused:\n```\nPOST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/file/getFile\n{\"path\":\"data/templates/\u003ctemplate-file\u003e.md\"}\n\u2192 403 (refuseToAccess)\n```\nThe same reader session obtains the file through the static route.\n\n**Snippets:**\n```\nGET http://127.0.0.1:6808/snippets/\u003csnippet-name\u003e.js\n\u2192 200, snippet source\n```\n\n**Export artifacts (conditional on a predictable name while the artifact exists):**\n```\nGET http://127.0.0.1:6808/export/csv/\u003cdoc-name\u003e/\u003cdoc-name\u003e.csv\n\u2192 200, exported content of a document the reader has no publish access to\n```\n\n### Impact\n\nAn anonymous reader (publish mode with auth disabled) or any publish `RoleReader` can read user-authored template documents that the REST API explicitly withholds from non-administrators, snippet source (JS/CSS), and the contents of the widgets, plugins and emoji directories. Where an export artifact exists under a derivable name, they can additionally retrieve exported content of documents outside their publish scope. Confidentiality-only.\n\n### Suggested fix\n\nApply the same treatment these routes\u0027 REST counterparts already receive: for non-administrator roles, enforce publish-access scoping plus `IsSensitivePath` and the `refuseToAccess` blocklist on the static routes, mirroring `/assets/*`. Alternatively, block `/templates/`, non-public `/snippets/`, and `/export/` for reader roles entirely.",
"id": "GHSA-fgmr-7w36-9qfq",
"modified": "2026-09-04T21:02:22Z",
"published": "2026-09-04T21:02:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/security/advisories/GHSA-fgmr-7w36-9qfq"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-72796"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/commit/34be6c0bb0739d5b8e99ecc0cbfb474abb16230d"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/siyuan-before-access-control-bypass-via-static-routes"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "SiYuan: Static-file routes bypass the publish-access controls enforced on the REST API, exposing templates, snippets and export artifacts to anonymous readers"
}
GHSA-FGR9-GVFW-C889
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-11-07 15:30 – Updated: 2026-11-07 15:30Missing Authorization vulnerability in VillaTheme CURCY woo-multi-currency allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects CURCY: from n/a through 2.2.20.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-121775"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-11-07T13:16:35Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in VillaTheme CURCY woo-multi-currency allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects CURCY: from n/a through 2.2.20.",
"id": "GHSA-fgr9-gvfw-c889",
"modified": "2026-11-07T15:30:27Z",
"published": "2026-11-07T15:30:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-121775"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/woo-multi-currency/vulnerability/wordpress-curcy-plugin-2-2-20-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:N/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.