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
20019 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-G3HQ-7735-4X6V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-25 21:31 – Updated: 2026-02-25 21:31GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 17.7 before 18.7.5, 18.8 before 18.8.5, and 18.9 before 18.9.1 that could have allowed an unauthorized user with Developer-role permissions to set pipeline variables for manually triggered jobs under certain conditions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-14103"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-25T20:20:07Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 17.7 before 18.7.5, 18.8 before 18.8.5, and 18.9 before 18.9.1 that could have allowed an unauthorized user with Developer-role permissions to set pipeline variables for manually triggered jobs under certain conditions.",
"id": "GHSA-g3hq-7735-4x6v",
"modified": "2026-02-25T21:31:19Z",
"published": "2026-02-25T21:31:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-14103"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/3448317"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://about.gitlab.com/releases/2026/02/25/patch-release-gitlab-18-9-1-released"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/583053"
}
],
"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-G3JJ-PMJ9-C2V3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-13 12:35 – Updated: 2026-07-13 12:35Missing Authorization vulnerability in vowelweb VW Wedding vw-wedding allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects VW Wedding: from n/a through <= 1.3.7.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-57776"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-13T10:16:41Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in vowelweb VW Wedding vw-wedding allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects VW Wedding: from n/a through \u003c= 1.3.7.",
"id": "GHSA-g3jj-pmj9-c2v3",
"modified": "2026-07-13T12:35:04Z",
"published": "2026-07-13T12:35:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-57776"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Theme/vw-wedding/vulnerability/wordpress-vw-wedding-theme-1-3-7-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:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-G3M8-RMP8-JHWV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-03-23 00:00 – Updated: 2022-03-30 00:01idcCMS v1.10 was discovered to contain an issue which allows attackers to arbitrarily delete the install.lock file, resulting in a reset of the CMS settings and data.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-27333"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-03-21T22:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "idcCMS v1.10 was discovered to contain an issue which allows attackers to arbitrarily delete the install.lock file, resulting in a reset of the CMS settings and data.",
"id": "GHSA-g3m8-rmp8-jhwv",
"modified": "2022-03-30T00:01:17Z",
"published": "2022-03-23T00:00:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-27333"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Cutegod/idcCMS/issues/1"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-G3MH-C45M-24GF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-11 12:33 – Updated: 2026-09-11 12:33The BuddyPress plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Insecure Direct Object Reference in all versions up to, and including, 14.3.3 via the bp_notifications_action_bulk_manage due to missing validation on a user controlled key. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to delete/mark as read/mark as unread notifications of other users.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-12145"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-11T12:16:50Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The BuddyPress plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Insecure Direct Object Reference in all versions up to, and including, 14.3.3 via the bp_notifications_action_bulk_manage due to missing validation on a user controlled key. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to delete/mark as read/mark as unread notifications of other users.",
"id": "GHSA-g3mh-c45m-24gf",
"modified": "2026-09-11T12:33:25Z",
"published": "2026-09-11T12:33:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-12145"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3259392"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/8c2965c0-a07f-46a2-b06c-fa2e739aea94?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-G3P6-F99V-P9J7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-02-18 06:35 – Updated: 2025-02-18 06:35The Team Builder – Meet the Team plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the save_team_builder_options() function in all versions up to, and including, 1.3. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to update the plugin's settings.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-13687"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-02-18T05:15:18Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Team Builder \u2013 Meet the Team plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the save_team_builder_options() function in all versions up to, and including, 1.3. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to update the plugin\u0027s settings.",
"id": "GHSA-g3p6-f99v-p9j7",
"modified": "2025-02-18T06:35:39Z",
"published": "2025-02-18T06:35:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-13687"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/team-display/tags/1.3/plugin.class.php#L34"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/7c35e20f-bfb0-4de0-9f8f-6e04fbbe138a?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-G3R6-G7M5-3QF5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-26 18:33 – Updated: 2026-10-26 18:33HashiCorp Consul and Consul Enterprise 1.17.0 up to 2.0.4 are vulnerable to an authorization bypass in the agent's service mesh leaf certificate API that may allow an attacker without a valid ACL token to retrieve a cached service leaf certificate and its private key. This vulnerability (CVE-2026-105765) is fixed in Consul Community Edition 2.1.0 and Consul Enterprise 2.1.0 and 1.21.19.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-105765"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-26T18:17:28Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "HashiCorp Consul and Consul Enterprise 1.17.0 up to 2.0.4 are vulnerable to an authorization bypass in the agent\u0027s service mesh leaf certificate API that may allow an attacker without a valid ACL token to retrieve a cached service leaf certificate and its private key. This vulnerability (CVE-2026-105765) is fixed in Consul Community Edition 2.1.0 and Consul Enterprise 2.1.0 and 1.21.19.",
"id": "GHSA-g3r6-g7m5-3qf5",
"modified": "2026-10-26T18:33:01Z",
"published": "2026-10-26T18:33:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-105765"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://discuss.hashicorp.com/t/hcsec-2026-46-consul-vulnerable-to-an-authorization-bypass-in-the-agents-service-mesh-leaf-certificate-api/77911"
}
],
"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-G3V6-R8P9-WXG9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-08-11 09:30 – Updated: 2023-08-11 21:53Mattermost fails to delete the attachments when deleting a message in a thread allowing a simple user to still be able to access and download the attachment of a deleted message
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 7.9.5"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server/v6"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "7.9.0"
},
{
"fixed": "7.9.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 7.10.3"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server/v6"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "7.10.0"
},
{
"fixed": "7.10.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 7.8.7"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server/v6"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "7.8.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-4105"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-08-11T21:53:22Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-08-11T07:15:09Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Mattermost fails to delete the attachments when deleting a message in a thread allowing a simple user to still be able to access and download the attachment of a deleted message\n\n",
"id": "GHSA-g3v6-r8p9-wxg9",
"modified": "2023-08-11T21:53:22Z",
"published": "2023-08-11T09:30:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-4105"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://mattermost.com/security-updates"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "github.com/mattermost/mattermost"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Mattermost fails to correctly delete attachments"
}
GHSA-G3XQ-9VPJ-M4XJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-14 21:31 – Updated: 2026-09-16 15:30A logic issue was addressed with improved validation. This issue is fixed in iOS 27 and iPadOS 27, macOS Golden Gate 27, visionOS 27, watchOS 27. An app may be able to bypass network restrictions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-84551"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-14T21:17:31Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A logic issue was addressed with improved validation. This issue is fixed in iOS 27 and iPadOS 27, macOS Golden Gate 27, visionOS 27, watchOS 27. An app may be able to bypass network restrictions.",
"id": "GHSA-g3xq-9vpj-m4xj",
"modified": "2026-09-16T15:30:47Z",
"published": "2026-09-14T21:31:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-84551"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/149034"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/149035"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/149037"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/149038"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-G422-2GXF-R76F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-08 15:32 – Updated: 2026-10-08 15:32Missing Authorization vulnerability in Liquid Web / StellarWP GiveWP give allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects GiveWP: from n/a through 4.18.0.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-106600"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-08T13:17:14Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Liquid Web / StellarWP GiveWP give allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects GiveWP: from n/a through 4.18.0.",
"id": "GHSA-g422-2gxf-r76f",
"modified": "2026-10-08T15:32:57Z",
"published": "2026-10-08T15:32:57Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-106600"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/give/vulnerability/wordpress-givewp-plugin-4-18-0-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:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-G423-GRF7-98RV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-04 19:56 – Updated: 2026-08-04 19:56Summary
An authenticated user whose features.image_generation permission has been revoked can still make the server generate images by sending the feature flag in a chat-completion request. The chat pipeline took the client-supplied features object at face value and never re-checked the permission that the direct image routes enforce, so the denial applied to the UI affordance but not to the server-side generation path.
Preconditions
Image generation must be enabled and a provider configured by the administrator (ENABLE_IMAGE_GENERATION is off by default). The per-user permission defaults to granted, so only deployments where an administrator explicitly revoked it for some users are affected. On 0.10.0 and later the caller must also set params.function_calling to legacy; on 0.9.x and earlier the legacy mode was the default, so no special parameter was needed. Deployments on native function calling are unaffected, since that path checks the permission before registering the image tools.
Impact
A user the administrator has explicitly denied image generation can consume the operator's configured provider through the chat API, spending the operator's API credits and provider quota and writing generated files to the operator's storage. Where an image is present in the conversation and image editing is enabled, the same handler reaches the image-edit provider as well. No provider credentials are exposed, and no other user's data is reachable.
Fix
Fixed in 897d69a (#26703). The legacy chat-features block now re-checks features.image_generation against the caller's permissions before invoking the image handler, matching the check the direct image routes and the native function-calling path already performed.
Root cause
The chat-completions endpoint stored the request's features object into request metadata, and process_chat_payload in the chat middleware dispatched to the image handler purely on the truthiness of that client-supplied flag. Permission enforcement lived on the two surfaces that were reached from the UI, the direct /images/generations and /images/edit routes and the native function-calling tool registration, and was simply absent on the legacy chat path. The flag was treated as a statement of user intent, which it is, rather than as an authorization decision, which the handler behind it made it.
Credits
@DavidCarliez, for identifying that the chat pipeline honours the client-supplied image-generation feature flag without re-checking the permission.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "open-webui"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.7.0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.11.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-70484"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-08-04T19:56:57Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\nAn authenticated user whose `features.image_generation` permission has been revoked can still make the server generate images by sending the feature flag in a chat-completion request. The chat pipeline took the client-supplied `features` object at face value and never re-checked the permission that the direct image routes enforce, so the denial applied to the UI affordance but not to the server-side generation path.\n\n## Preconditions\nImage generation must be enabled and a provider configured by the administrator (`ENABLE_IMAGE_GENERATION` is off by default). The per-user permission defaults to granted, so only deployments where an administrator explicitly revoked it for some users are affected. On 0.10.0 and later the caller must also set `params.function_calling` to `legacy`; on 0.9.x and earlier the legacy mode was the default, so no special parameter was needed. Deployments on native function calling are unaffected, since that path checks the permission before registering the image tools.\n\n## Impact\nA user the administrator has explicitly denied image generation can consume the operator\u0027s configured provider through the chat API, spending the operator\u0027s API credits and provider quota and writing generated files to the operator\u0027s storage. Where an image is present in the conversation and image editing is enabled, the same handler reaches the image-edit provider as well. No provider credentials are exposed, and no other user\u0027s data is reachable.\n\n## Fix\nFixed in 897d69a (#26703). The legacy chat-features block now re-checks `features.image_generation` against the caller\u0027s permissions before invoking the image handler, matching the check the direct image routes and the native function-calling path already performed.\n\n## Root cause\nThe chat-completions endpoint stored the request\u0027s `features` object into request metadata, and `process_chat_payload` in the chat middleware dispatched to the image handler purely on the truthiness of that client-supplied flag. Permission enforcement lived on the two surfaces that were reached from the UI, the direct `/images/generations` and `/images/edit` routes and the native function-calling tool registration, and was simply absent on the legacy chat path. The flag was treated as a statement of user intent, which it is, rather than as an authorization decision, which the handler behind it made it.\n\n## Credits\n@DavidCarliez, for identifying that the chat pipeline honours the client-supplied image-generation feature flag without re-checking the permission.",
"id": "GHSA-g423-grf7-98rv",
"modified": "2026-08-04T19:56:57Z",
"published": "2026-08-04T19:56:57Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/security/advisories/GHSA-g423-grf7-98rv"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/pull/26703"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/commit/897d69a35c65f8ab54583bb9ca8dc74eab7bcd29"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/releases/tag/v0.11.0"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Open WebUI: Users denied the image-generation permission can still generate images via chat completions"
}
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.