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
20099 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-JXRP-M8R2-XF97
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-21 06:30 – Updated: 2026-03-21 06:30The Company Posts for LinkedIn plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Missing Authorization in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.0. This is due to a missing capability check on the linkedin_company_post_reset_handler() function hooked to admin_post_reset_linkedin_company_post. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to delete LinkedIn post data stored in the site's options table.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-1935"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-21T04:16:56Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Company Posts for LinkedIn plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Missing Authorization in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.0. This is due to a missing capability check on the `linkedin_company_post_reset_handler()` function hooked to `admin_post_reset_linkedin_company_post`. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to delete LinkedIn post data stored in the site\u0027s options table.",
"id": "GHSA-jxrp-m8r2-xf97",
"modified": "2026-03-21T06:30:24Z",
"published": "2026-03-21T06:30:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-1935"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/company-posts-for-linkedin/tags/1.0.0/admin/class-linkedin-company-posts-admin.php#L625"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/company-posts-for-linkedin/trunk/admin/class-linkedin-company-posts-admin.php#L625"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/4c635405-997e-44ea-8851-7d09051307ad?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-JXRW-X44M-C9MQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-03 09:32 – Updated: 2026-08-04 18:31The Classified Listing WordPress plugin before 5.4.4 does not perform a capability check on an AJAX action that returns aggregated store revenue totals, allowing users with contributor-level access and above to read daily revenue figures normally restricted to administrators and report managers.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-16276"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-03T07:16:41Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "The Classified Listing WordPress plugin before 5.4.4 does not perform a capability check on an AJAX action that returns aggregated store revenue totals, allowing users with contributor-level access and above to read daily revenue figures normally restricted to administrators and report managers.",
"id": "GHSA-jxrw-x44m-c9mq",
"modified": "2026-08-04T18:31:22Z",
"published": "2026-08-03T09:32:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-16276"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/64321af7-dadb-4bde-8c8f-ca520145d02c"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-JXW6-4VRC-QVM7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-18 18:30 – Updated: 2024-11-18 18:30The Elfsight Telegram Chat CC plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data to a missing capability check on the 'updatePreferences' function in all versions up to, and including, 1.1.0. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-10390"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-18T17:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Elfsight Telegram Chat CC plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data to a missing capability check on the \u0027updatePreferences\u0027 function in all versions up to, and including, 1.1.0. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page.",
"id": "GHSA-jxw6-4vrc-qvm7",
"modified": "2024-11-18T18:30:59Z",
"published": "2024-11-18T18:30:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-10390"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://codecanyon.net/item/elfsight-telegram-chat/25288599"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/07244763-3482-4cfb-8ae4-d19f312011aa?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-JXWR-G6R6-J3FX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-11 14:04 – Updated: 2026-05-19 15:57Description
There's an IDOR in the channels message management system that allows authenticated users to modify or delete any message within channels they have read access to. The vulnerability exists in the message update and delete endpoints, which implement channel-level authorization but completely lack message ownership validation.
While the frontend correctly implements ownership checks (showing edit/delete buttons only for message owners or admins), the backend APIs bypass these protections by only validating channel access permissions without verifying that the requesting user owns the target message. This creates a client-side security control bypass where attackers can directly call the APIs to modify other users' messages.
The vulnerability affects both message content modification and deletion, allowing users to tamper with message integrity and audit trails in collaborative channel environments.
Source - Sink Analysis
Source: User-controlled message_id parameter in URL path
Call Chain:
1. FastAPI route handlers update_message_by_id() (line 450) and delete_message_by_id() (line 630) in backend/open_webui/routers/channels.py
2. Channel-level authorization check: has_access(user.id, type="read", access_control=channel.access_control) at lines 457 and 637
3. Message retrieval: Messages.get_message_by_id(message_id) at lines 467 and 647
4. Channel ID validation: if message.channel_id != id: at lines 472 and 652
5. Missing: Message ownership validation (message.user_id == user.id)
6. Sink: Messages.update_message_by_id(message_id, form_data) at line 476 or Messages.delete_message_by_id(message_id) at line 658 - modifies any message without ownership verification
Proof of Concept
- Deploy Open WebUI with channels enabled (
ENABLE_CHANNELS=true) - Create scenario:
- User A creates a channel and grants User B read access
- User A posts a message in the channel
- User B observes the message_id from the frontend
- Exploit: User B sends direct API requests bypassing frontend controls:
Message Update:
curl -X POST "http://localhost:8080/api/v1/channels/{channel_id}/messages/{victim_message_id}/update" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer {attacker_token}" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"content": "Malicious content injected by attacker"}'
Message Deletion:
curl -X DELETE "http://localhost:8080/api/v1/channels/{channel_id}/messages/{victim_message_id}/delete" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer {attacker_token}"
- Result: Victim's message is modified or deleted despite User B only having read permissions
Impact
- Users can modify other users' message content within shared channels
- Read-only users gain write/delete capabilities over other users' content
Remediation
Implement proper message ownership validation in the update and delete endpoints by adding ownership checks that follow the established security pattern used throughout the codebase. First, add a validation condition after the existing message retrieval to ensure only message owners or admins can modify messages: if user.role != "admin" and message.user_id != user.id and not has_access(user.id, type="write", access_control=channel.access_control) then raise a 403 Forbidden exception. Second, change the existing permission check from type="read" to type="write" for both update and delete operations to align with the access control model used in other routers (notes, prompts, knowledge, etc.).
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.6.18"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "open-webui"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.6.19"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-44569"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-11T14:04:35Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-15T22:16:53Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Description\n\nThere\u0027s an IDOR in the channels message management system that allows authenticated users to modify or delete any message within channels they have read access to. The vulnerability exists in the message update and delete endpoints, which implement channel-level authorization but completely lack message ownership validation.\n\nWhile the frontend correctly implements ownership checks (showing edit/delete buttons only for message owners or admins), the backend APIs bypass these protections by only validating channel access permissions without verifying that the requesting user owns the target message. This creates a client-side security control bypass where attackers can directly call the APIs to modify other users\u0027 messages.\n\nThe vulnerability affects both message content modification and deletion, allowing users to tamper with message integrity and audit trails in collaborative channel environments.\n\n### Source - Sink Analysis\n\n**Source:** User-controlled `message_id` parameter in URL path\n\n**Call Chain:**\n1. FastAPI route handlers `update_message_by_id()` (line 450) and `delete_message_by_id()` (line 630) in `backend/open_webui/routers/channels.py`\n2. Channel-level authorization check: `has_access(user.id, type=\"read\", access_control=channel.access_control)` at lines 457 and 637\n3. Message retrieval: `Messages.get_message_by_id(message_id)` at lines 467 and 647 \n4. Channel ID validation: `if message.channel_id != id:` at lines 472 and 652\n5. **Missing:** Message ownership validation (`message.user_id == user.id`)\n6. **Sink:** `Messages.update_message_by_id(message_id, form_data)` at line 476 or `Messages.delete_message_by_id(message_id)` at line 658 - modifies any message without ownership verification\n\n### Proof of Concept\n\n1. Deploy Open WebUI with channels enabled (`ENABLE_CHANNELS=true`)\n2. Create scenario:\n - User A creates a channel and grants User B read access\n - User A posts a message in the channel\n - User B observes the message_id from the frontend\n3. Exploit: User B sends direct API requests bypassing frontend controls:\n\nMessage Update:\n```bash\ncurl -X POST \"http://localhost:8080/api/v1/channels/{channel_id}/messages/{victim_message_id}/update\" \\\n -H \"Authorization: Bearer {attacker_token}\" \\\n -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n -d \u0027{\"content\": \"Malicious content injected by attacker\"}\u0027\n```\n\nMessage Deletion:\n```bash\ncurl -X DELETE \"http://localhost:8080/api/v1/channels/{channel_id}/messages/{victim_message_id}/delete\" \\\n -H \"Authorization: Bearer {attacker_token}\"\n```\n\n4. Result: Victim\u0027s message is modified or deleted despite User B only having read permissions\n\n### Impact\n\n- Users can modify other users\u0027 message content within shared channels\n- Read-only users gain write/delete capabilities over other users\u0027 content\n\n### Remediation\n\nImplement proper message ownership validation in the update and delete endpoints by adding ownership checks that follow the established security pattern used throughout the codebase. First, add a validation condition after the existing message retrieval to ensure only message owners or admins can modify messages: `if user.role != \"admin\" and message.user_id != user.id and not has_access(user.id, type=\"write\", access_control=channel.access_control)` then raise a 403 Forbidden exception. Second, change the existing permission check from `type=\"read\"` to `type=\"write\"` for both update and delete operations to align with the access control model used in other routers (notes, prompts, knowledge, etc.).",
"id": "GHSA-jxwr-g6r6-j3fx",
"modified": "2026-05-19T15:57:42Z",
"published": "2026-05-11T14:04:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/security/advisories/GHSA-jxwr-g6r6-j3fx"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-44569"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Open WebUI\u0027s Insecure Message Access Breaks Authorization"
}
GHSA-JXX7-C7V6-WH2P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-09 12:32 – Updated: 2026-06-30 03:35GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab EE affecting all versions from 18.4 before 18.5.5, 18.6 before 18.6.3, and 18.7 before 18.7.1 that could have allowed an authenticated user to access and utilize AI model settings from unauthorized namespaces by manipulating namespace identifiers in API requests.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-13772"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-09T10:15:45Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab EE affecting all versions from 18.4 before 18.5.5, 18.6 before 18.6.3, and 18.7 before 18.7.1 that could have allowed an authenticated user to access and utilize AI model settings from unauthorized namespaces by manipulating namespace identifiers in API requests.",
"id": "GHSA-jxx7-c7v6-wh2p",
"modified": "2026-06-30T03:35:24Z",
"published": "2026-01-09T12:32:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-13772"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://about.gitlab.com/releases/2026/01/07/patch-release-gitlab-18-7-1-released"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-13772"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2428224"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/581268"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2025/cve-2025-13772.json"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-M24W-6JFQ-FMH3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-08 09:31 – Updated: 2026-04-10 18:31Missing Authorization vulnerability in Wava.co Wava Payment wava-payment allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Wava Payment: from n/a through <= 0.3.7.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-39609"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-08T09:16:30Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Wava.co Wava Payment wava-payment allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Wava Payment: from n/a through \u003c= 0.3.7.",
"id": "GHSA-m24w-6jfq-fmh3",
"modified": "2026-04-10T18:31:16Z",
"published": "2026-04-08T09:31:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-39609"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/wava-payment/vulnerability/wordpress-wava-payment-plugin-0-3-7-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:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-M254-MFGM-2HWX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 22:28 – Updated: 2022-07-26 00:01WP DSGVO Tools (GDPR) <= 3.1.23 had an AJAX action, ‘admin-dismiss-unsubscribe‘, which lacked a capability check and a nonce check and was available to unauthenticated users, and did not check the post type when deleting unsubscription requests. As such, it was possible for an attacker to permanently delete an arbitrary post or page on the site by sending an AJAX request with the “action” parameter set to “admin-dismiss-unsubscribe” and the “id” parameter set to the post to be deleted. Sending such a request would move the post to the trash, and repeating the request would permanently delete the post in question.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-42359"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-11-05T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "WP DSGVO Tools (GDPR) \u003c= 3.1.23 had an AJAX action, \u2018admin-dismiss-unsubscribe\u2018, which lacked a capability check and a nonce check and was available to unauthenticated users, and did not check the post type when deleting unsubscription requests. As such, it was possible for an attacker to permanently delete an arbitrary post or page on the site by sending an AJAX request with the \u201caction\u201d parameter set to \u201cadmin-dismiss-unsubscribe\u201d and the \u201cid\u201d parameter set to the post to be deleted. Sending such a request would move the post to the trash, and repeating the request would permanently delete the post in question.",
"id": "GHSA-m254-mfgm-2hwx",
"modified": "2022-07-26T00:01:11Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T22:28:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-42359"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2021/11/vulnerability-in-wp-dsgvo-tools-gdpr-plugin-allows-unauthenticated-page-deletion"
}
],
"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:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-M25V-GRP2-QQ63
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-01-11 09:30 – Updated: 2024-01-11 09:30The Easy Social Feed plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on multiple AJAX functions in all versions up to, and including, 6.5.2. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level access and above, to perform unauthorized actions, such as modifying the plugin's Facebook and Instagram access tokens and updating group IDs.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-6883"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-732",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-01-11T07:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Easy Social Feed plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on multiple AJAX functions in all versions up to, and including, 6.5.2. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level access and above, to perform unauthorized actions, such as modifying the plugin\u0027s Facebook and Instagram access tokens and updating group IDs.",
"id": "GHSA-m25v-grp2-qq63",
"modified": "2024-01-11T09:30:34Z",
"published": "2024-01-11T09:30:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-6883"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3012165/easy-facebook-likebox"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/3deee9b5-2e36-447d-a492-e22e3dc6a5ab?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-M26X-JFJ3-QHFG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-29 12:31 – Updated: 2026-09-29 12:31GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 19.0 before 19.2.7, 19.3 before 19.3.3, and 19.4 before 19.4.1 that under certain conditions could have allowed an authenticated user to read private child issue contents, including titles and descriptions, from projects they had no access to, due to missing authorization checks on linked work items within visible epics.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-8937"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-29T10:17:13Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 19.0 before 19.2.7, 19.3 before 19.3.3, and 19.4 before 19.4.1 that under certain conditions could have allowed an authenticated user to read private child issue contents, including titles and descriptions, from projects they had no access to, due to missing authorization checks on linked work items within visible epics.",
"id": "GHSA-m26x-jfj3-qhfg",
"modified": "2026-09-29T12:31:30Z",
"published": "2026-09-29T12:31:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-8937"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/3702369"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.gitlab.com/releases/patches/patch-release-gitlab-19-4-1-released"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/work_items/600533"
}
],
"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-M275-M478-FFM6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-03 18:31 – Updated: 2026-09-03 18:31Unauthenticated Broken Access Control in Quick Event Manager <= 9.17 versions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-84847"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-03T17:17:29Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Unauthenticated Broken Access Control in Quick Event Manager \u003c= 9.17 versions.",
"id": "GHSA-m275-m478-ffm6",
"modified": "2026-09-03T18:31:50Z",
"published": "2026-09-03T18:31:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-84847"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/quick-event-manager/vulnerability/wordpress-quick-event-manager-plugin-9-17-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:H/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.