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-FMPG-3M4M-7H33
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-11-07 18:31 – Updated: 2026-11-07 18:31Missing Authorization vulnerability in ThemeGrill User Registration user-registration allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects User Registration: from n/a through 5.3.1.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-119522"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-11-07T18:17:16Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in ThemeGrill User Registration user-registration allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects User Registration: from n/a through 5.3.1.",
"id": "GHSA-fmpg-3m4m-7h33",
"modified": "2026-11-07T18:31:38Z",
"published": "2026-11-07T18:31:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-119522"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/user-registration/vulnerability/wordpress-user-registration-plugin-5-3-1-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"
}
]
}
GHSA-FMPM-G49V-6H55
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-20 09:30 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:35Missing Authorization vulnerability in Webba Appointment Booking Webba Booking allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels. This issue affects Webba Booking: from n/a through 5.1.20.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-54040"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-20T08:15:47Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Webba Appointment Booking Webba Booking allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels. This issue affects Webba Booking: from n/a through 5.1.20.",
"id": "GHSA-fmpm-g49v-6h55",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:35:56Z",
"published": "2025-08-20T09:30:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-54040"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/webba-booking-lite/vulnerability/wordpress-webba-booking-5-1-20-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-FMPR-3JC4-W7XX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-19 18:31 – Updated: 2026-02-26 21:31Missing Authorization vulnerability in designinvento DirectoryPress directorypress allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects DirectoryPress: from n/a through <= 3.6.25.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-23548"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-19T09:16:12Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in designinvento DirectoryPress directorypress allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects DirectoryPress: from n/a through \u003c= 3.6.25.",
"id": "GHSA-fmpr-3jc4-w7xx",
"modified": "2026-02-26T21:31:27Z",
"published": "2026-02-19T18:31:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-23548"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/directorypress/vulnerability/wordpress-directorypress-plugin-3-6-25-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-FMQ3-CRHC-VF6V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-24 18:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:33Missing Authorization vulnerability in Speedcomp Linet ERP-Woocommerce Integration allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels. This issue affects Linet ERP-Woocommerce Integration: from n/a through 3.5.7.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-24594"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-24T18:15:36Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Speedcomp Linet ERP-Woocommerce Integration allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels. This issue affects Linet ERP-Woocommerce Integration: from n/a through 3.5.7.",
"id": "GHSA-fmq3-crhc-vf6v",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:33:24Z",
"published": "2025-01-24T18:31:14Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-24594"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/linet-erp-woocommerce-integration/vulnerability/wordpress-linet-erp-woocommerce-integration-plugin-3-5-7-csrf-to-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-FMQ6-2658-X7VM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-11-22 18:30 – Updated: 2023-11-22 18:30The Funnelforms Free plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the fnsf_af2_test_mail function in versions up to, and including, 3.4. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level permissions and above, to send test emails to an arbitrary email address.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-5419"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-11-22T16:15:12Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Funnelforms Free plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the fnsf_af2_test_mail function in versions up to, and including, 3.4. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level permissions and above, to send test emails to an arbitrary email address.",
"id": "GHSA-fmq6-2658-x7vm",
"modified": "2023-11-22T18:30:56Z",
"published": "2023-11-22T18:30:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-5419"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/2986938/funnelforms-free"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/64248d15-e6a7-442f-b269-e9f629d297d3?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-FMQH-XP37-5HR8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-10 15:10 – Updated: 2026-09-10 15:10Summary
Any member of a channel who can post to it could also replace the text of a message written by a different member. The channel branch of the chat completions endpoint checked that the caller may write to the channel, and that the targeted message belongs to that channel, but never checked that the caller actually wrote the message being edited. The message kept its original author, so the replacement text was displayed and stored as though the victim had written it. The dedicated channel message edit route performed the authorship check correctly and refused the same edit, so the two paths disagreed about who may modify a message.
Preconditions
- Channels must be enabled.
ENABLE_CHANNELSdefaults toFalse, so a default deployment is not affected until an administrator turns channels on. - The attacker must be an approved user holding write access to the target channel, which is the ordinary state for any participant. No elevated role, group membership or additional permission is needed, and the attacker does not need to be the channel owner.
- The attacker must know the id of the targeted message. That id is returned to every member who reads the channel, so it requires no further access.
- Channels the attacker cannot post to are not affected, and neither are deployments with channels disabled.
Impact
An attacker can rewrite what another member said, under that member's name, in a shared channel. The stored record and every later reader show the victim as the author of text they never wrote, so this is a loss of both integrity and non-repudiation: the victim cannot point to the record to show what they actually said. A conversation can be silently altered after the fact rather than only appended to.
How much control the attacker has over the replacement text depends on the configured model, because the text is produced by generating a completion into the victim's message. Reducing a message to unrelated or empty content works regardless of the model, while reproducing an exact attacker-chosen string requires a model that returns the supplied prompt closely enough. The attack grants no new role or permission, does not reach channels the attacker cannot already post to, and exposes no message content they could not already read.
Fix
Fixed in 0.11.1 by commit 7d392bedc (#28631). The gate on the channel branch now also compares the targeted message's author against the calling user and refuses when they differ, which is the condition the dedicated channel message update route already applied. Administrators retain the ability to edit any message, on both paths, as before. Upgrading to 0.11.1 fully resolves this, and no configuration change is required.
Root cause
Affected components: - the channel branch of the chat completions handler, which resolves a client-supplied message id for editing - the channel event emitter, which re-checks the message before persisting the update
Not affected: the dedicated channel message update route, which already held the correct check.
The channel branch was written to answer the question of whether the caller may write into this channel and whether the message belongs to it. Both of those checks were present and effective. The question it never asked was whether the caller wrote the message. Ownership of a channel message is carried by the message record rather than by the channel, so channel-level write access was treated as sufficient authority over every message inside it. The dedicated edit route grew the authorship comparison because editing is its only purpose, while the completions path reached the same operation through a general-purpose entry point and inherited only the coarser channel check.
Proof of concept
Reproduced against a running instance built from the development branch, with channels enabled and an OpenAI-compatible upstream that echoes the submitted prompt so the replacement text is deterministic.
Setup, entirely through the ordinary API: an administrator creates two further accounts, Alice and Mallory, both with the plain user role and no additional permissions, creates a channel, and grants both accounts read and write access. Alice posts a message reading ALICE ORIGINAL MESSAGE. Nothing is written directly to the database.
Control, through the dedicated route:
POST /api/v1/channels/<channel_id>/messages/<alice_message_id>/update
Authorization: Bearer <mallory_token>
{"content": "PWNED_BY_MALLORY"}
-> 403
Attack, submitting the same target id to the completions endpoint:
POST /api/chat/completions
Authorization: Bearer <mallory_token>
{"model": "<model>", "stream": true,
"chat_id": "channel:<channel_id>",
"id": "<alice_message_id>",
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "PWNED_BY_MALLORY"}]}
-> 200
Reading the channel back afterwards shows the targeted message content replaced with the attacker's string while its recorded author is still Alice.
Credits
- @Classic298 — identified that the completions path and the dedicated edit route disagreed on message authorship, and reproduced the cross-member overwrite end to end.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "open-webui"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.9.5"
},
{
"fixed": "0.11.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-87994"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-639",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-09-10T15:10:29Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-09T22:18:47Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\nAny member of a channel who can post to it could also replace the text of a message written by a different member. The channel branch of the chat completions endpoint checked that the caller may write to the channel, and that the targeted message belongs to that channel, but never checked that the caller actually wrote the message being edited. The message kept its original author, so the replacement text was displayed and stored as though the victim had written it. The dedicated channel message edit route performed the authorship check correctly and refused the same edit, so the two paths disagreed about who may modify a message.\n\n## Preconditions\n- Channels must be enabled. `ENABLE_CHANNELS` defaults to `False`, so a default deployment is not affected until an administrator turns channels on.\n- The attacker must be an approved user holding write access to the target channel, which is the ordinary state for any participant. No elevated role, group membership or additional permission is needed, and the attacker does not need to be the channel owner.\n- The attacker must know the id of the targeted message. That id is returned to every member who reads the channel, so it requires no further access.\n- Channels the attacker cannot post to are not affected, and neither are deployments with channels disabled.\n\n## Impact\nAn attacker can rewrite what another member said, under that member\u0027s name, in a shared channel. The stored record and every later reader show the victim as the author of text they never wrote, so this is a loss of both integrity and non-repudiation: the victim cannot point to the record to show what they actually said. A conversation can be silently altered after the fact rather than only appended to.\n\nHow much control the attacker has over the replacement text depends on the configured model, because the text is produced by generating a completion into the victim\u0027s message. Reducing a message to unrelated or empty content works regardless of the model, while reproducing an exact attacker-chosen string requires a model that returns the supplied prompt closely enough. The attack grants no new role or permission, does not reach channels the attacker cannot already post to, and exposes no message content they could not already read.\n\n## Fix\nFixed in 0.11.1 by commit `7d392bedc` (#28631). The gate on the channel branch now also compares the targeted message\u0027s author against the calling user and refuses when they differ, which is the condition the dedicated channel message update route already applied. Administrators retain the ability to edit any message, on both paths, as before. Upgrading to 0.11.1 fully resolves this, and no configuration change is required.\n\n## Root cause\nAffected components:\n- the channel branch of the chat completions handler, which resolves a client-supplied message id for editing\n- the channel event emitter, which re-checks the message before persisting the update\n\nNot affected: the dedicated channel message update route, which already held the correct check.\n\nThe channel branch was written to answer the question of whether the caller may write into this channel and whether the message belongs to it. Both of those checks were present and effective. The question it never asked was whether the caller wrote the message. Ownership of a channel message is carried by the message record rather than by the channel, so channel-level write access was treated as sufficient authority over every message inside it. The dedicated edit route grew the authorship comparison because editing is its only purpose, while the completions path reached the same operation through a general-purpose entry point and inherited only the coarser channel check.\n\n## Proof of concept\nReproduced against a running instance built from the development branch, with channels enabled and an OpenAI-compatible upstream that echoes the submitted prompt so the replacement text is deterministic.\n\nSetup, entirely through the ordinary API: an administrator creates two further accounts, Alice and Mallory, both with the plain user role and no additional permissions, creates a channel, and grants both accounts read and write access. Alice posts a message reading `ALICE ORIGINAL MESSAGE`. Nothing is written directly to the database.\n\nControl, through the dedicated route:\n\n```\nPOST /api/v1/channels/\u003cchannel_id\u003e/messages/\u003calice_message_id\u003e/update\nAuthorization: Bearer \u003cmallory_token\u003e\n{\"content\": \"PWNED_BY_MALLORY\"}\n-\u003e 403\n```\n\nAttack, submitting the same target id to the completions endpoint:\n\n```\nPOST /api/chat/completions\nAuthorization: Bearer \u003cmallory_token\u003e\n{\"model\": \"\u003cmodel\u003e\", \"stream\": true,\n \"chat_id\": \"channel:\u003cchannel_id\u003e\",\n \"id\": \"\u003calice_message_id\u003e\",\n \"messages\": [{\"role\": \"user\", \"content\": \"PWNED_BY_MALLORY\"}]}\n-\u003e 200\n```\n\nReading the channel back afterwards shows the targeted message content replaced with the attacker\u0027s string while its recorded author is still Alice.\n\n## Credits\n- **@Classic298** \u2014 identified that the completions path and the dedicated edit route disagreed on message authorship, and reproduced the cross-member overwrite end to end.",
"id": "GHSA-fmqh-xp37-5hr8",
"modified": "2026-09-10T15:10:29Z",
"published": "2026-09-10T15:10:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/security/advisories/GHSA-fmqh-xp37-5hr8"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-87994"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/pull/28631"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/commit/7d392bedc9c1aaecc94509a58e59186b614433dc"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/releases/tag/v0.11.1"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Open WebUI: Channel members can overwrite another member\u0027s message via the chat completions endpoint"
}
GHSA-FMRR-242F-45JX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-27 12:30 – Updated: 2026-10-27 12:30Semantic MediaWiki from 7.3.0 before 7.3.1 contains a missing authorization vulnerability in the smwtask API module that allows unauthenticated attackers to run queued jobs and force store updates. Attackers can use the public anonymous CSRF token with run-joblist to execute arbitrary job types in unbounded counts, or invoke update on sysop-protected pages, leaking page titles and exhausting resources.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-116873"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-27T11:17:29Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Semantic MediaWiki from 7.3.0 before 7.3.1 contains a missing authorization vulnerability in the smwtask API module that allows unauthenticated attackers to run queued jobs and force store updates. Attackers can use the public anonymous CSRF token with run-joblist to execute arbitrary job types in unbounded counts, or invoke update on sysop-protected pages, leaking page titles and exhausting resources.",
"id": "GHSA-fmrr-242f-45jx",
"modified": "2026-10-27T12:30:46Z",
"published": "2026-10-27T12:30:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/SemanticMediaWiki/SemanticMediaWiki/security/advisories/GHSA-rjqv-6r83-pg8v"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-116873"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/semantic-mediawiki-7.3.0-missing-authorization-via-smwtask-api-run-joblist-and-update"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-FMW4-XVM4-WCM8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-22 18:30 – Updated: 2026-01-27 00:31Missing Authorization vulnerability in e-plugins Real Estate Pro real-estate-pro allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Real Estate Pro: from n/a through <= 2.1.5.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-69192"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-22T17:16:26Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in e-plugins Real Estate Pro real-estate-pro allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Real Estate Pro: from n/a through \u003c= 2.1.5.",
"id": "GHSA-fmw4-xvm4-wcm8",
"modified": "2026-01-27T00:31:12Z",
"published": "2026-01-22T18:30:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-69192"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/real-estate-pro/vulnerability/wordpress-real-estate-pro-plugin-2-1-5-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:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FMX8-77JM-47RF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-10 18:31 – Updated: 2026-03-10 18:31SAP Solution Tools Plug-In (ST-PI) contains a function module that does not perform the necessary authorization checks for authenticated users, allowing system information to be disclosed. This vulnerability has a low impact on confidentiality and does not affect integrity or availability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-24313"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-10T17:35:55Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "SAP Solution Tools Plug-In (ST-PI) contains a function module that does not perform the necessary authorization checks for authenticated users, allowing system information to be disclosed. This vulnerability has a low impact on confidentiality and does not affect integrity or availability.",
"id": "GHSA-fmx8-77jm-47rf",
"modified": "2026-03-10T18:31:17Z",
"published": "2026-03-10T18:31:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-24313"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://me.sap.com/notes/3707930"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://url.sap/sapsecuritypatchday"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FMXP-8CV8-5W59
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-24 00:30 – Updated: 2026-03-24 00:30The LearnPress – WordPress LMS Plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized deletion of quiz question answers due to a missing capability check in the delete_question_answer() function of the EditQuestionAjax class in all versions up to, and including, 4.3.2.8. The AbstractAjax::catch_lp_ajax() dispatcher verifies a wp_rest nonce but performs no current_user_can() check, and the QuestionAnswerModel::delete() method only validates minimum answer counts without checking user capabilities. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to delete answer options from any quiz question on the site.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-3225"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-23T23:17:13Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The LearnPress \u2013 WordPress LMS Plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized deletion of quiz question answers due to a missing capability check in the delete_question_answer() function of the EditQuestionAjax class in all versions up to, and including, 4.3.2.8. The AbstractAjax::catch_lp_ajax() dispatcher verifies a wp_rest nonce but performs no current_user_can() check, and the QuestionAnswerModel::delete() method only validates minimum answer counts without checking user capabilities. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to delete answer options from any quiz question on the site.",
"id": "GHSA-fmxp-8cv8-5w59",
"modified": "2026-03-24T00:30:25Z",
"published": "2026-03-24T00:30:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-3225"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/learnpress/tags/4.3.2.7/inc/Ajax/AbstractAjax.php#L17"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/learnpress/tags/4.3.2.7/inc/Ajax/EditQuestionAjax.php#L284"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/learnpress/tags/4.3.2.7/inc/Models/Question/QuestionAnswerModel.php#L243"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?old_path=/learnpress/tags/4.3.2.8\u0026new_path=/learnpress/tags/4.3.3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/fc4afb78-fca6-4cc2-8e64-4785d93055e6?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"
}
]
}
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.