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
19957 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-FWG2-3F5M-7XX2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-20 21:31 – Updated: 2026-08-20 21:31NoSleep 1.5.1 exposes a privileged XPC Mach service and accepts raw dictionary messages containing attacker-controlled command and NSBundlePath values.This issue affects NoSleep: 1.5.1.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-19755"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-20T21:17:06Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "NoSleep 1.5.1 exposes a privileged XPC Mach service and accepts raw dictionary messages containing attacker-controlled command\u00a0and NSBundlePath\u00a0values.This issue affects NoSleep: 1.5.1.",
"id": "GHSA-fwg2-3f5m-7xx2",
"modified": "2026-08-20T21:31:29Z",
"published": "2026-08-20T21:31:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-19755"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://fluidattacks.com/advisories/iggy"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/integralpro/nosleep"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/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-FWG7-53P4-G33C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-10 19:49 – Updated: 2026-04-10 19:49Summary
All 9 comment panel admin endpoints (/api/panel/comments/*) are missing RequireScopes() middleware, while every other admin endpoint in the application enforces scope-based authorization on access tokens. An admin-issued access token scoped to minimal permissions (e.g., echo:read only) can perform full comment moderation operations including listing, approving, rejecting, deleting comments, and modifying comment system settings.
Details
The access token scope enforcement system works as follows: JWTAuthMiddleware (internal/middleware/auth.go) parses any valid JWT and injects a viewer into the request context. The RequireScopes() middleware (internal/middleware/scope.go:14) then checks whether the token is an access token and, if so, validates that it carries the required scopes. Session tokens are passed through without scope checks (by design — sessions represent full user authority).
Every admin route group applies RequireScopes() per-handler:
internal/router/echo.go— usesRequireScopes(ScopeEchoWrite)/RequireScopes(ScopeEchoRead)internal/router/file.go— usesRequireScopes(ScopeFileRead)/RequireScopes(ScopeFileWrite)internal/router/user.go— usesRequireScopes(ScopeAdminUser)/RequireScopes(ScopeProfileRead)internal/router/setting.go— usesRequireScopes(ScopeAdminSettings)/RequireScopes(ScopeAdminToken)
However, internal/router/comment.go:28-36 registers all 9 panel endpoints directly on AuthRouterGroup without any RequireScopes() call:
// internal/router/comment.go:28-36
appRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.GET("/panel/comments", h.CommentHandler.ListPanelComments())
appRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.GET("/panel/comments/:id", h.CommentHandler.GetCommentByID())
appRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.PATCH("/panel/comments/:id/status", h.CommentHandler.UpdateCommentStatus())
appRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.PATCH("/panel/comments/:id/hot", h.CommentHandler.UpdateCommentHot())
appRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.DELETE("/panel/comments/:id", h.CommentHandler.DeleteComment())
appRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.POST("/panel/comments/batch", h.CommentHandler.BatchAction())
appRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.GET("/panel/comments/settings", h.CommentHandler.GetCommentSetting())
appRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.PUT("/panel/comments/settings", h.CommentHandler.UpdateCommentSetting())
appRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.POST("/panel/comments/settings/test-email", h.CommentHandler.TestCommentEmail())
The service layer's requireAdmin() (internal/service/comment/comment.go:719-732) only validates the user's database role (IsAdmin/IsOwner), not the token's scopes:
func (s *CommentService) requireAdmin(ctx context.Context) error {
v := viewer.MustFromContext(ctx)
if v == nil || strings.TrimSpace(v.UserID()) == "" {
return commonModel.NewBizError(...)
}
user, err := s.commonService.CommonGetUserByUserId(ctx, v.UserID())
if err != nil { return err }
if !user.IsAdmin && !user.IsOwner {
return commonModel.NewBizError(...)
}
return nil
}
The scopes comment:read, comment:write, and comment:moderate are defined in internal/model/auth/scope.go:11-13 and registered as valid scopes, but are never referenced in any RequireScopes() middleware call anywhere in the codebase.
Execution flow: Request with access token (scoped to echo:read only) → JWTAuthMiddleware extracts user ID, sets viewer → No RequireScopes middleware → Handler calls service → requireAdmin() checks user.IsAdmin (true for admin user) → Operation succeeds.
PoC
# 1. As admin, create an access token scoped ONLY to echo:read
curl -X POST https://target/api/settings/access-tokens \
-H 'Authorization: Bearer <admin-session-token>' \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d '{"name":"readonly","scopes":["echo:read"],"audience":["public-client"],"expiry_days":30}'
# Save the returned token as $TOKEN
# 2. Verify the token CANNOT access other admin endpoints (scoped correctly):
curl https://target/api/settings \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN"
# Expected: 403 Forbidden (scope check blocks access)
# 3. Use the same limited token to list ALL comments (including pending/rejected):
curl https://target/api/panel/comments \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN"
# Expected: 200 OK with full comment list (bypasses scope enforcement)
# 4. Delete a comment:
curl -X DELETE https://target/api/panel/comments/<comment-id> \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN"
# Expected: 200 OK (should require comment:moderate scope)
# 5. Approve/reject comments:
curl -X PATCH https://target/api/panel/comments/<comment-id>/status \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d '{"status":"approved"}'
# Expected: 200 OK (should require comment:moderate scope)
# 6. Read comment system settings:
curl https://target/api/panel/comments/settings \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN"
# Expected: 200 OK (may expose SMTP configuration)
# 7. Disable the comment system entirely:
curl -X PUT https://target/api/panel/comments/settings \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d '{"enable_comment":false}'
# Expected: 200 OK (should require admin:settings scope)
Impact
- Principle of least privilege violation: Access tokens designed to limit admin capabilities do not restrict comment panel access. An integration token intended only for reading echoes gains full comment moderation authority.
- Unauthorized comment moderation: An attacker who compromises a limited-scope access token (e.g., a CI/CD token scoped to
echo:read) can approve, reject, delete, and batch-modify all comments. - Data exposure: The panel comment listing endpoint returns commenter PII (email addresses, IP hashes, user agents) that should be restricted to tokens with
comment:readscope. - Settings modification: Comment system settings (including potentially SMTP configuration) can be read and modified, and test emails can be triggered, which could leak mail server credentials.
- Scope: The attack requires an admin-issued access token, which limits the attack surface (PR:H). However, access tokens are specifically designed for limited-privilege integrations, and this vulnerability negates those limits for the entire comment subsystem.
Recommended Fix
Add RequireScopes() middleware to all comment panel routes in internal/router/comment.go:
func setupCommentRoutes(appRouterGroup *AppRouterGroup, h *handler.Bundle) {
// ... captcha and public routes unchanged ...
// Admin Panel — enforce scopes on access tokens
appRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.GET("/panel/comments",
middleware.RequireScopes(authModel.ScopeCommentRead),
h.CommentHandler.ListPanelComments())
appRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.GET("/panel/comments/:id",
middleware.RequireScopes(authModel.ScopeCommentRead),
h.CommentHandler.GetCommentByID())
appRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.PATCH("/panel/comments/:id/status",
middleware.RequireScopes(authModel.ScopeCommentMod),
h.CommentHandler.UpdateCommentStatus())
appRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.PATCH("/panel/comments/:id/hot",
middleware.RequireScopes(authModel.ScopeCommentMod),
h.CommentHandler.UpdateCommentHot())
appRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.DELETE("/panel/comments/:id",
middleware.RequireScopes(authModel.ScopeCommentMod),
h.CommentHandler.DeleteComment())
appRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.POST("/panel/comments/batch",
middleware.RequireScopes(authModel.ScopeCommentMod),
h.CommentHandler.BatchAction())
appRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.GET("/panel/comments/settings",
middleware.RequireScopes(authModel.ScopeAdminSettings),
h.CommentHandler.GetCommentSetting())
appRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.PUT("/panel/comments/settings",
middleware.RequireScopes(authModel.ScopeAdminSettings),
h.CommentHandler.UpdateCommentSetting())
appRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.POST("/panel/comments/settings/test-email",
middleware.RequireScopes(authModel.ScopeAdminSettings),
h.CommentHandler.TestCommentEmail())
}
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/lin-snow/ech0"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.4.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-10T19:49:20Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nAll 9 comment panel admin endpoints (`/api/panel/comments/*`) are missing `RequireScopes()` middleware, while every other admin endpoint in the application enforces scope-based authorization on access tokens. An admin-issued access token scoped to minimal permissions (e.g., `echo:read` only) can perform full comment moderation operations including listing, approving, rejecting, deleting comments, and modifying comment system settings.\n\n## Details\n\nThe access token scope enforcement system works as follows: `JWTAuthMiddleware` (`internal/middleware/auth.go`) parses any valid JWT and injects a viewer into the request context. The `RequireScopes()` middleware (`internal/middleware/scope.go:14`) then checks whether the token is an access token and, if so, validates that it carries the required scopes. Session tokens are passed through without scope checks (by design \u2014 sessions represent full user authority).\n\nEvery admin route group applies `RequireScopes()` per-handler:\n\n- `internal/router/echo.go` \u2014 uses `RequireScopes(ScopeEchoWrite)` / `RequireScopes(ScopeEchoRead)`\n- `internal/router/file.go` \u2014 uses `RequireScopes(ScopeFileRead)` / `RequireScopes(ScopeFileWrite)`\n- `internal/router/user.go` \u2014 uses `RequireScopes(ScopeAdminUser)` / `RequireScopes(ScopeProfileRead)`\n- `internal/router/setting.go` \u2014 uses `RequireScopes(ScopeAdminSettings)` / `RequireScopes(ScopeAdminToken)`\n\nHowever, `internal/router/comment.go:28-36` registers all 9 panel endpoints directly on `AuthRouterGroup` without any `RequireScopes()` call:\n\n```go\n// internal/router/comment.go:28-36\nappRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.GET(\"/panel/comments\", h.CommentHandler.ListPanelComments())\nappRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.GET(\"/panel/comments/:id\", h.CommentHandler.GetCommentByID())\nappRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.PATCH(\"/panel/comments/:id/status\", h.CommentHandler.UpdateCommentStatus())\nappRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.PATCH(\"/panel/comments/:id/hot\", h.CommentHandler.UpdateCommentHot())\nappRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.DELETE(\"/panel/comments/:id\", h.CommentHandler.DeleteComment())\nappRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.POST(\"/panel/comments/batch\", h.CommentHandler.BatchAction())\nappRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.GET(\"/panel/comments/settings\", h.CommentHandler.GetCommentSetting())\nappRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.PUT(\"/panel/comments/settings\", h.CommentHandler.UpdateCommentSetting())\nappRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.POST(\"/panel/comments/settings/test-email\", h.CommentHandler.TestCommentEmail())\n```\n\nThe service layer\u0027s `requireAdmin()` (`internal/service/comment/comment.go:719-732`) only validates the user\u0027s database role (`IsAdmin`/`IsOwner`), not the token\u0027s scopes:\n\n```go\nfunc (s *CommentService) requireAdmin(ctx context.Context) error {\n v := viewer.MustFromContext(ctx)\n if v == nil || strings.TrimSpace(v.UserID()) == \"\" {\n return commonModel.NewBizError(...)\n }\n user, err := s.commonService.CommonGetUserByUserId(ctx, v.UserID())\n if err != nil { return err }\n if !user.IsAdmin \u0026\u0026 !user.IsOwner {\n return commonModel.NewBizError(...)\n }\n return nil\n}\n```\n\nThe scopes `comment:read`, `comment:write`, and `comment:moderate` are defined in `internal/model/auth/scope.go:11-13` and registered as valid scopes, but are never referenced in any `RequireScopes()` middleware call anywhere in the codebase.\n\n**Execution flow:** Request with access token (scoped to `echo:read` only) \u2192 `JWTAuthMiddleware` extracts user ID, sets viewer \u2192 No `RequireScopes` middleware \u2192 Handler calls service \u2192 `requireAdmin()` checks `user.IsAdmin` (true for admin user) \u2192 Operation succeeds.\n\n## PoC\n\n```bash\n# 1. As admin, create an access token scoped ONLY to echo:read\ncurl -X POST https://target/api/settings/access-tokens \\\n -H \u0027Authorization: Bearer \u003cadmin-session-token\u003e\u0027 \\\n -H \u0027Content-Type: application/json\u0027 \\\n -d \u0027{\"name\":\"readonly\",\"scopes\":[\"echo:read\"],\"audience\":[\"public-client\"],\"expiry_days\":30}\u0027\n# Save the returned token as $TOKEN\n\n# 2. Verify the token CANNOT access other admin endpoints (scoped correctly):\ncurl https://target/api/settings \\\n -H \"Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN\"\n# Expected: 403 Forbidden (scope check blocks access)\n\n# 3. Use the same limited token to list ALL comments (including pending/rejected):\ncurl https://target/api/panel/comments \\\n -H \"Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN\"\n# Expected: 200 OK with full comment list (bypasses scope enforcement)\n\n# 4. Delete a comment:\ncurl -X DELETE https://target/api/panel/comments/\u003ccomment-id\u003e \\\n -H \"Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN\"\n# Expected: 200 OK (should require comment:moderate scope)\n\n# 5. Approve/reject comments:\ncurl -X PATCH https://target/api/panel/comments/\u003ccomment-id\u003e/status \\\n -H \"Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN\" \\\n -H \u0027Content-Type: application/json\u0027 \\\n -d \u0027{\"status\":\"approved\"}\u0027\n# Expected: 200 OK (should require comment:moderate scope)\n\n# 6. Read comment system settings:\ncurl https://target/api/panel/comments/settings \\\n -H \"Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN\"\n# Expected: 200 OK (may expose SMTP configuration)\n\n# 7. Disable the comment system entirely:\ncurl -X PUT https://target/api/panel/comments/settings \\\n -H \"Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN\" \\\n -H \u0027Content-Type: application/json\u0027 \\\n -d \u0027{\"enable_comment\":false}\u0027\n# Expected: 200 OK (should require admin:settings scope)\n```\n\n## Impact\n\n- **Principle of least privilege violation**: Access tokens designed to limit admin capabilities do not restrict comment panel access. An integration token intended only for reading echoes gains full comment moderation authority.\n- **Unauthorized comment moderation**: An attacker who compromises a limited-scope access token (e.g., a CI/CD token scoped to `echo:read`) can approve, reject, delete, and batch-modify all comments.\n- **Data exposure**: The panel comment listing endpoint returns commenter PII (email addresses, IP hashes, user agents) that should be restricted to tokens with `comment:read` scope.\n- **Settings modification**: Comment system settings (including potentially SMTP configuration) can be read and modified, and test emails can be triggered, which could leak mail server credentials.\n- **Scope**: The attack requires an admin-issued access token, which limits the attack surface (PR:H). However, access tokens are specifically designed for limited-privilege integrations, and this vulnerability negates those limits for the entire comment subsystem.\n\n## Recommended Fix\n\nAdd `RequireScopes()` middleware to all comment panel routes in `internal/router/comment.go`:\n\n```go\nfunc setupCommentRoutes(appRouterGroup *AppRouterGroup, h *handler.Bundle) {\n\t// ... captcha and public routes unchanged ...\n\n\t// Admin Panel \u2014 enforce scopes on access tokens\n\tappRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.GET(\"/panel/comments\",\n\t\tmiddleware.RequireScopes(authModel.ScopeCommentRead),\n\t\th.CommentHandler.ListPanelComments())\n\tappRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.GET(\"/panel/comments/:id\",\n\t\tmiddleware.RequireScopes(authModel.ScopeCommentRead),\n\t\th.CommentHandler.GetCommentByID())\n\tappRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.PATCH(\"/panel/comments/:id/status\",\n\t\tmiddleware.RequireScopes(authModel.ScopeCommentMod),\n\t\th.CommentHandler.UpdateCommentStatus())\n\tappRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.PATCH(\"/panel/comments/:id/hot\",\n\t\tmiddleware.RequireScopes(authModel.ScopeCommentMod),\n\t\th.CommentHandler.UpdateCommentHot())\n\tappRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.DELETE(\"/panel/comments/:id\",\n\t\tmiddleware.RequireScopes(authModel.ScopeCommentMod),\n\t\th.CommentHandler.DeleteComment())\n\tappRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.POST(\"/panel/comments/batch\",\n\t\tmiddleware.RequireScopes(authModel.ScopeCommentMod),\n\t\th.CommentHandler.BatchAction())\n\tappRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.GET(\"/panel/comments/settings\",\n\t\tmiddleware.RequireScopes(authModel.ScopeAdminSettings),\n\t\th.CommentHandler.GetCommentSetting())\n\tappRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.PUT(\"/panel/comments/settings\",\n\t\tmiddleware.RequireScopes(authModel.ScopeAdminSettings),\n\t\th.CommentHandler.UpdateCommentSetting())\n\tappRouterGroup.AuthRouterGroup.POST(\"/panel/comments/settings/test-email\",\n\t\tmiddleware.RequireScopes(authModel.ScopeAdminSettings),\n\t\th.CommentHandler.TestCommentEmail())\n}\n```",
"id": "GHSA-fwg7-53p4-g33c",
"modified": "2026-04-10T19:49:20Z",
"published": "2026-04-10T19:49:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/lin-snow/Ech0/security/advisories/GHSA-fwg7-53p4-g33c"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/lin-snow/Ech0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/lin-snow/Ech0/releases/tag/v4.4.3"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Ech0 Comment Panel Endpoints Missing RequireScopes Middleware \u2014 Scoped Access Token Bypass"
}
GHSA-FWGQ-WMQX-H49Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-29 12:31 – Updated: 2026-07-29 12:31The Klubraum Membership Request plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the kr_mr_store_settings() function in all versions up to, and including, 1.1.0. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugin's settings, including the Klubraum API token and introduction text, effectively hijacking the plugin's integration with the Klubraum service.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-4604"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-29T11:16:49Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Klubraum Membership Request plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the `kr_mr_store_settings()` function in all versions up to, and including, 1.1.0. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugin\u0027s settings, including the Klubraum API token and introduction text, effectively hijacking the plugin\u0027s integration with the Klubraum service.",
"id": "GHSA-fwgq-wmqx-h49q",
"modified": "2026-07-29T12:31:23Z",
"published": "2026-07-29T12:31:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-4604"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/klubraum-membership-request/tags/1.1.0/admin/class-klubraum-membership-request-widget-admin.php#L151"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/klubraum-membership-request/tags/1.1.0/admin/class-klubraum-membership-request-widget-admin.php#L152"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/klubraum-membership-request/trunk/admin/class-klubraum-membership-request-widget-admin.php#L152"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail=\u0026reponame=\u0026new=3491619%40klubraum-membership-request%2Ftrunk%2Fadmin%2Fclass-klubraum-membership-request-widget-admin.php\u0026old=2512635%40klubraum-membership-request%2Ftrunk%2Fadmin%2Fclass-klubraum-membership-request-widget-admin.php"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/09e158d2-f9a6-41a6-a91f-1763a1a44b04?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FWHH-R8JH-PCJ9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-16 09:31 – Updated: 2026-01-20 15:32Missing Authorization vulnerability in Syed Balkhi Feeds for YouTube feeds-for-youtube allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Feeds for YouTube: from n/a through <= 2.4.0.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-64635"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-16T09:15:55Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Syed Balkhi Feeds for YouTube feeds-for-youtube allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Feeds for YouTube: from n/a through \u003c= 2.4.0.",
"id": "GHSA-fwhh-r8jh-pcj9",
"modified": "2026-01-20T15:32:14Z",
"published": "2025-12-16T09:31:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-64635"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/feeds-for-youtube/vulnerability/wordpress-feeds-for-youtube-plugin-2-4-0-broken-access-control-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vdp.patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/feeds-for-youtube/vulnerability/wordpress-feeds-for-youtube-plugin-2-4-0-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:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FWHJ-68XR-QF9R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:13 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:13Zoom Client for Meetings through 4.6.8 on macOS has the disable-library-validation entitlement, which allows a local process (with the user's privileges) to obtain unprompted microphone and camera access by loading a crafted library and thereby inheriting Zoom Client's microphone and camera access.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-11470"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-04-01T22:15:00Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Zoom Client for Meetings through 4.6.8 on macOS has the disable-library-validation entitlement, which allows a local process (with the user\u0027s privileges) to obtain unprompted microphone and camera access by loading a crafted library and thereby inheriting Zoom Client\u0027s microphone and camera access.",
"id": "GHSA-fwhj-68xr-qf9r",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:13:17Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:13:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-11470"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://objective-see.com/blog/blog_0x56.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-FWJ7-P878-R668
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-02-03 21:31 – Updated: 2025-02-04 18:30Incorrect access control in Geovision GV-ASWeb version 6.1.0.0 or less allows unauthorized attackers with low-level privileges to manage and create new user accounts via supplying a crafted HTTP request.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-56898"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-02-03T21:15:14Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Incorrect access control in Geovision GV-ASWeb version 6.1.0.0 or less allows unauthorized attackers with low-level privileges to manage and create new user accounts via supplying a crafted HTTP request.",
"id": "GHSA-fwj7-p878-r668",
"modified": "2025-02-04T18:30:48Z",
"published": "2025-02-03T21:31:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-56898"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/DRAGOWN/CVE-2024-56898"
}
],
"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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FWJQ-4H8X-3J22
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:57 – Updated: 2024-04-04 02:09SAP NetWeaver Process Integration (B2B Toolkit), before versions 1.0 and 2.0, does not perform necessary authorization checks for an authenticated user, allowing the import of B2B table content that leads to Missing Authorization Check.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-0367"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-10-08T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "SAP NetWeaver Process Integration (B2B Toolkit), before versions 1.0 and 2.0, does not perform necessary authorization checks for an authenticated user, allowing the import of B2B table content that leads to Missing Authorization Check.",
"id": "GHSA-fwjq-4h8x-3j22",
"modified": "2024-04-04T02:09:29Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:57:58Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-0367"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://launchpad.support.sap.com/#/notes/2805777"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wiki.scn.sap.com/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=528123050"
}
],
"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-FWP8-962P-2XCC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-11 12:32 – Updated: 2026-05-11 12:32Dell Automation Platform versions prior to 2.0.0.0, contains a missing authorization vulnerability. A low privileged attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to Elevation of privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-32658"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-11T10:16:13Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Dell Automation Platform versions prior to 2.0.0.0, contains a missing authorization vulnerability. A low privileged attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to Elevation of privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-fwp8-962p-2xcc",
"modified": "2026-05-11T12:32:31Z",
"published": "2026-05-11T12:32:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-32658"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000458049/dsa-2026-193-security-update-for-dell-automation-platform-multiple-vulnerabilities"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FWPV-78CG-R2QC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-10-30 18:30 – Updated: 2023-11-03 18:30In Slice, there is a possible disclosure of installed packages due to a missing permission check. This could lead to local information disclosure with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-21294"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-10-30T17:15:47Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In Slice, there is a possible disclosure of installed packages due to a missing permission check. This could lead to local information disclosure with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.",
"id": "GHSA-fwpv-78cg-r2qc",
"modified": "2023-11-03T18:30:23Z",
"published": "2023-10-30T18:30:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-21294"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/android-14"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FWVV-MV4G-PQ78
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-10 06:30 – Updated: 2026-02-10 06:30SAP Solution Tools Plug-In (ST-PI) contains a function module that does not perform the necessary authorization checks for authenticated users, allowing sensitive information to be disclosed. This vulnerability has a high impact on confidentiality and does not affect integrity or availability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-24322"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-10T04:16:04Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "SAP Solution Tools Plug-In (ST-PI) contains a function module that does not perform the necessary authorization checks for authenticated users, allowing sensitive information to be disclosed. This vulnerability has a high impact on confidentiality and does not affect integrity or availability.",
"id": "GHSA-fwvv-mv4g-pq78",
"modified": "2026-02-10T06:30:38Z",
"published": "2026-02-10T06:30:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-24322"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://me.sap.com/notes/3705882"
},
{
"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:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation
- Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
- Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
Mitigation
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
Mitigation MIT-4.4
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
- For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
Mitigation
- For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page.
- One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
Mitigation
Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.
CAPEC-665: Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws
An adversary leverages a firmware weakness within the Thunderbolt protocol, on a computing device to manipulate Thunderbolt controller firmware in order to exploit vulnerabilities in the implementation of authorization and verification schemes within Thunderbolt protection mechanisms. Upon gaining physical access to a target device, the adversary conducts high-level firmware manipulation of the victim Thunderbolt controller SPI (Serial Peripheral Interface) flash, through the use of a SPI Programing device and an external Thunderbolt device, typically as the target device is booting up. If successful, this allows the adversary to modify memory, subvert authentication mechanisms, spoof identities and content, and extract data and memory from the target device. Currently 7 major vulnerabilities exist within Thunderbolt protocol with 9 attack vectors as noted in the Execution Flow.