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
20100 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-MFHQ-GHCJ-C36Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-14 12:31 – Updated: 2026-08-14 12:31The Grav API plugin (getgrav/grav-plugin-api) before 1.0.13 contains an API-key scope cap bypass in DemoController. Its private requireSuper() method checks isSuperAdmin() and returns early before invoking requirePermission(), so the api_key_scopes cap (enforced only in requirePermission()) is skipped. As a result, any scoped API key minted on a super account can bypass its scope restrictions when calling the baseline() and reset() operations (e.g. POST /api/v1/demo/reset), allowing it to capture the demo baseline or force a demo reset. Impact is bounded to demo-engine control and is conditional on demo mode being configured with writable resources.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-72823"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-14T12:16:45Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Grav API plugin (getgrav/grav-plugin-api) before 1.0.13 contains an API-key scope cap bypass in DemoController. Its private requireSuper() method checks isSuperAdmin() and returns early before invoking requirePermission(), so the api_key_scopes cap (enforced only in requirePermission()) is skipped. As a result, any scoped API key minted on a super account can bypass its scope restrictions when calling the baseline() and reset() operations (e.g. POST /api/v1/demo/reset), allowing it to capture the demo baseline or force a demo reset. Impact is bounded to demo-engine control and is conditional on demo mode being configured with writable resources.",
"id": "GHSA-mfhq-ghcj-c36q",
"modified": "2026-08-14T12:31:26Z",
"published": "2026-08-14T12:31:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/getgrav/grav/security/advisories/GHSA-vq9w-jwj5-wfjg"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-72823"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/grav-before-api-key-scope-cap-bypass-via-democontroller"
}
],
"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:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-MFMP-HPG9-83CH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:45 – Updated: 2024-04-04 00:38Read of RFC destination does not always perform necessary authorization checks, resulting in escalation of privileges to access information on RFC destinations on managed systems and SAP Solution Manager system (ST-PI, before versions 2008_1_700, 2008_1_710, and 740).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-0293"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-05-14T21:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Read of RFC destination does not always perform necessary authorization checks, resulting in escalation of privileges to access information on RFC destinations on managed systems and SAP Solution Manager system (ST-PI, before versions 2008_1_700, 2008_1_710, and 740).",
"id": "GHSA-mfmp-hpg9-83ch",
"modified": "2024-04-04T00:38:39Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:45:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-0293"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://launchpad.support.sap.com/#/notes/2756625"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wiki.scn.sap.com/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=520259032"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/108324"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-MFMR-7G5X-H6PM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-08 09:31 – Updated: 2026-04-13 21:30Missing Authorization vulnerability in kutethemes KuteShop kuteshop allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects KuteShop: from n/a through <= 4.2.9.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-39612"
],
"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 kutethemes KuteShop kuteshop allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects KuteShop: from n/a through \u003c= 4.2.9.",
"id": "GHSA-mfmr-7g5x-h6pm",
"modified": "2026-04-13T21:30:35Z",
"published": "2026-04-08T09:31:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-39612"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Theme/kuteshop/vulnerability/wordpress-kuteshop-theme-4-2-9-arbitrary-shortcode-execution-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-MFR5-V73V-62QR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-09 18:30 – Updated: 2026-01-20 15:32Missing Authorization vulnerability in CridioStudio ListingPro Lead Form listingpro-lead-form allows Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs.This issue affects ListingPro Lead Form: from n/a through <= 1.0.2.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-63049"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-09T16:18:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in CridioStudio ListingPro Lead Form listingpro-lead-form allows Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs.This issue affects ListingPro Lead Form: from n/a through \u003c= 1.0.2.",
"id": "GHSA-mfr5-v73v-62qr",
"modified": "2026-01-20T15:32:03Z",
"published": "2025-12-09T18:30:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-63049"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/listingpro-lead-form/vulnerability/wordpress-listingpro-lead-form-plugin-1-0-2-broken-access-control-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vdp.patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/listingpro-lead-form/vulnerability/wordpress-listingpro-lead-form-plugin-1-0-2-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-MFRJ-V65R-979C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-04 20:58 – Updated: 2026-09-04 20:58CVE: This vulnerability corresponds to CVE-2026-72798.
Summary
renderAttributeView correctly applies the reader publish-access filter, but the filter's row-accessibility decision is keyed solely to the row's first cell, and it never inspects the remaining cells' values. Relation and Rollup cells carry mirrored content from a different database, so a row belonging to a published database can hand an anonymous reader the contents of a related database whose host document is hidden, publish-forbidden, or password-protected. Separately, when the first column is not a block value the accessibility check is skipped entirely and the row is returned unchecked.
Note:
This is distinct from the previously reported password-tier omission in the same function that concerns the row's own primary block, whereas these two defects concern (a) other cells' related-database content, which no row-level check covers and (b) rows where the first cell is not a block at all. A fix to the row-drop condition alone would close neither.
Details
renderAttributeView applies the filter (kernel/api/av.go:68):
retDataMap["view"] = model.FilterViewByPublishAccess(c, publishAccess, retDataMap["view"].(av.Viewable))
Inside FilterViewByPublishAccess (kernel/model/publish_access.go):
if row.Cells[0].Value.Block != nil {
bt = treenode.GetBlockTree(row.Cells[0].Value.Block.ID)
}
if bt != nil {
if !CheckPathAccessableByPublishIgnore(bt.BoxID, bt.Path, publishIgnore) {
row = nil // drop
}
}
// every other cell in the row is returned as-is
(a) Relation and Rollup cells leak the related database. These value types carry mirrored content, not just references:
type ValueRelation struct { BlockIDs []string; Contents []*Value }
type ValueRollup struct { Contents []*Value }
The render pipeline populates them from a different attribute view e.g. kernel/model/attribute_view.go:2731:
v.GroupVal.Relation.Contents = []*av.Value{ relationDestAv.GetBlockValue(groupValue) }
relationDestAv is a separate database that may live in a hidden, publish-forbidden, or password-protected document. When a published database's row survives the filter (because its column-0 document is public), its Relation and Rollup columns return the related, non-published database's content block text, titles, and mirrored column values. FilterViewByPublishAccess performs no publish-access evaluation on Relation.Contents or Rollup.Contents.
(b) Fail-open when column 0 is not a block. bt is assigned only when row.Cells[0].Value.Block != nil. If the first column is a non-block type (Relation, Text, …) or the row is detached, bt remains nil, the if bt != nil guard is skipped, and the row is returned with no accessibility check at all. Column order is user-reorderable, so any database whose first column is not the document block bypasses row filtering entirely.
Verified at origin/master (eef105683).
Proof of Concept
Precondition: publish mode enabled (default port 6808); anonymous when Publish.Auth.Enable is false. Two databases: DB-A hosted in a published document, DB-B hosted in a publish-forbidden or password-protected document, with a Relation column in DB-A pointing at DB-B and containing a distinctive marker value.
(a) Related-database content disclosure:
POST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/av/renderAttributeView
{"id":"<DB_A_AV_ID>"}
Rows of DB-A are returned (correctly, since its host document is public), and their Relation/Rollup cell Contents include DB-B's block text and mirrored column values, despite DB-B's host document being excluded from publishing.
(b) Fail-open row: Reorder DB-A so its first column is a non-block type (or use a detached row), mark its host document publish-forbidden, and request the same endpoint the row is returned without any accessibility evaluation.
Verification status: both defects are confirmed by code inspection at origin/master. A live demonstration requires a build from HEAD with two linked databases; available on request.
Impact
An anonymous reader (publish mode with auth disabled) or any publish RoleReader can read content from databases whose host documents are hidden, publish-forbidden, or password-protected, by requesting a published database that relates to them. Because relation graphs are commonly used to link a public index to private detail records, this exposes exactly the data the publish boundary is meant to withhold. The fail-open path additionally returns rows with no accessibility check whenever the first column is not a block value, which is a user-controlled layout property. Confidentiality-only.
Suggested fix
In FilterViewByPublishAccess:
1. For each retained row, evaluate every Relation.Contents and Rollup.Contents entry against CheckBlockIdAccessableByPublishAccess (including the publish-password tier) and drop or mask entries that fail.
2. Fail closed: when row.Cells[0] has no accessible block (Value.Block == nil or bt == nil), drop the row rather than returning it unchecked.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.0.0-20260724121519-426991d155c0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-72798"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-09-04T20:58:04Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "**CVE:** This vulnerability corresponds to [CVE-2026-72798](https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-72798).\n\n### Summary\n\n`renderAttributeView` correctly applies the reader publish-access filter, but the filter\u0027s row-accessibility decision is keyed solely to the row\u0027s **first cell**, and it never inspects the remaining cells\u0027 values. Relation and Rollup cells carry mirrored content from a *different* database, so a row belonging to a published database can hand an anonymous reader the contents of a related database whose host document is hidden, publish-forbidden, or password-protected. Separately, when the first column is not a block value the accessibility check is skipped entirely and the row is returned unchecked.\n\n### Note:\n\nThis is distinct from the previously reported password-tier omission in the same function that concerns the row\u0027s own primary block, whereas these two defects concern (a) other cells\u0027 related-database content, which no row-level check covers and (b) rows where the first cell is not a block at all. A fix to the row-drop condition alone would close neither.\n\n### Details\n\n`renderAttributeView` applies the filter (`kernel/api/av.go:68`):\n```go\nretDataMap[\"view\"] = model.FilterViewByPublishAccess(c, publishAccess, retDataMap[\"view\"].(av.Viewable))\n```\n\nInside `FilterViewByPublishAccess` (`kernel/model/publish_access.go`):\n```go\nif row.Cells[0].Value.Block != nil {\n bt = treenode.GetBlockTree(row.Cells[0].Value.Block.ID)\n}\nif bt != nil {\n if !CheckPathAccessableByPublishIgnore(bt.BoxID, bt.Path, publishIgnore) {\n row = nil // drop\n }\n}\n// every other cell in the row is returned as-is\n```\n\n**(a) Relation and Rollup cells leak the related database.** These value types carry mirrored content, not just references:\n```go\ntype ValueRelation struct { BlockIDs []string; Contents []*Value }\ntype ValueRollup struct { Contents []*Value }\n```\nThe render pipeline populates them from a different attribute view e.g. `kernel/model/attribute_view.go:2731`:\n```go\nv.GroupVal.Relation.Contents = []*av.Value{ relationDestAv.GetBlockValue(groupValue) }\n```\n`relationDestAv` is a separate database that may live in a hidden, publish-forbidden, or password-protected document. When a published database\u0027s row survives the filter (because its column-0 document is public), its Relation and Rollup columns return the related, non-published database\u0027s content block text, titles, and mirrored column values. `FilterViewByPublishAccess` performs no publish-access evaluation on `Relation.Contents` or `Rollup.Contents`.\n\n**(b) Fail-open when column 0 is not a block.** `bt` is assigned only when `row.Cells[0].Value.Block != nil`. If the first column is a non-block type (Relation, Text, \u2026) or the row is detached, `bt` remains `nil`, the `if bt != nil` guard is skipped, and the row is returned with no accessibility check at all. Column order is user-reorderable, so any database whose first column is not the document block bypasses row filtering entirely.\n\nVerified at `origin/master` (`eef105683`).\n\n### Proof of Concept\n\nPrecondition: publish mode enabled (default port 6808); anonymous when `Publish.Auth.Enable` is `false`. Two databases: **DB-A** hosted in a published document, **DB-B** hosted in a publish-forbidden or password-protected document, with a Relation column in DB-A pointing at DB-B and containing a distinctive marker value.\n\n**(a) Related-database content disclosure:**\n```\nPOST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/av/renderAttributeView\n{\"id\":\"\u003cDB_A_AV_ID\u003e\"}\n```\nRows of DB-A are returned (correctly, since its host document is public), and their Relation/Rollup cell `Contents` include DB-B\u0027s block text and mirrored column values, despite DB-B\u0027s host document being excluded from publishing.\n\n**(b) Fail-open row:**\nReorder DB-A so its first column is a non-block type (or use a detached row), mark its host document publish-forbidden, and request the same endpoint the row is returned without any accessibility evaluation.\n\n*Verification status:* both defects are confirmed by code inspection at `origin/master`. A live demonstration requires a build from HEAD with two linked databases; available on request.\n\n### Impact\n\nAn anonymous reader (publish mode with auth disabled) or any publish `RoleReader` can read content from databases whose host documents are hidden, publish-forbidden, or password-protected, by requesting a *published* database that relates to them. Because relation graphs are commonly used to link a public index to private detail records, this exposes exactly the data the publish boundary is meant to withhold. The fail-open path additionally returns rows with no accessibility check whenever the first column is not a block value, which is a user-controlled layout property. Confidentiality-only.\n\n### Suggested fix\n\nIn `FilterViewByPublishAccess`:\n1. For each retained row, evaluate every `Relation.Contents` and `Rollup.Contents` entry against `CheckBlockIdAccessableByPublishAccess` (including the publish-password tier) and drop or mask entries that fail.\n2. Fail closed: when `row.Cells[0]` has no accessible block (`Value.Block == nil` or `bt == nil`), drop the row rather than returning it unchecked.",
"id": "GHSA-mfrj-v65r-979c",
"modified": "2026-09-04T20:58:04Z",
"published": "2026-09-04T20:58:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/security/advisories/GHSA-mfrj-v65r-979c"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-72798"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/commit/426991d155c0c7c3a9e71badd6761eddfa8aad5b"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/siyuan-before-information-disclosure-via-renderattributeview"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "SiYuan: Publish-access filter on renderAttributeView leaves related-database content unfiltered and fails open on non-block first columns"
}
GHSA-MFVG-37XJ-9W4X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-07 00:01 – Updated: 2022-09-10 00:00Missing Access Control vulnerability in About Rentals. Inc. About Rentals plugin <= 1.5 at WordPress.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-36427"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-09-06T23:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Missing Access Control vulnerability in About Rentals. Inc. About Rentals plugin \u003c= 1.5 at WordPress.",
"id": "GHSA-mfvg-37xj-9w4x",
"modified": "2022-09-10T00:00:35Z",
"published": "2022-09-07T00:01:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-36427"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/about-rentals/wordpress-about-rentals-plugin-1-5-missing-access-control-vulnerability/_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wordpress.org/plugins/about-rentals"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-MFVG-HP2G-PR6F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-02 12:32 – Updated: 2026-04-23 15:34Missing Authorization vulnerability in Cyberlord92 Broken Link Checker | Finder allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Broken Link Checker | Finder: from n/a through 2.4.2.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-46082"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-02T12:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Cyberlord92 Broken Link Checker | Finder allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Broken Link Checker | Finder: from n/a through 2.4.2.",
"id": "GHSA-mfvg-hp2g-pr6f",
"modified": "2026-04-23T15:34:13Z",
"published": "2025-01-02T12:32:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-46082"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/broken-link-finder/vulnerability/wordpress-broken-link-checker-finder-plugin-2-4-2-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-MFVX-X37R-J8RX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-15 18:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:35Missing Authorization vulnerability in FWDesign Ultimate Video Player allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels. This issue affects Ultimate Video Player: from n/a through 10.1.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-49432"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-15T16:15:29Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in FWDesign Ultimate Video Player allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels. This issue affects Ultimate Video Player: from n/a through 10.1.",
"id": "GHSA-mfvx-x37r-j8rx",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:35:53Z",
"published": "2025-08-15T18:31:11Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-49432"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/fwduvp/vulnerability/wordpress-ultimate-video-player-plugin-plugin-10-1-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-MFXX-QCW7-5Q5R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-30 15:30 – Updated: 2026-08-30 15:30Dolibarr versions 10.0.0 before 24.0.0 fail to perform per-object authorization checks in the Users::getGroups REST API endpoint, allowing authenticated users to retrieve group memberships of other users. Attackers can call GET /users/{id}/groups with arbitrary user identifiers to access group names, entity associations, and private notes across tenant boundaries.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-82633"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-30T13:16:56Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Dolibarr versions 10.0.0 before 24.0.0 fail to perform per-object authorization checks in the Users::getGroups REST API endpoint, allowing authenticated users to retrieve group memberships of other users. Attackers can call GET /users/{id}/groups with arbitrary user identifiers to access group names, entity associations, and private notes across tenant boundaries.",
"id": "GHSA-mfxx-qcw7-5q5r",
"modified": "2026-08-30T15:30:26Z",
"published": "2026-08-30T15:30:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-82633"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Dolibarr/dolibarr/commit/fd478850f823e27c672300acb4b02baeef79aef1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Dolibarr/dolibarr"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Dolibarr/dolibarr/blob/23.0.4/htdocs/user/class/api_users.class.php"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Dolibarr/dolibarr/releases/tag/24.0.0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/dolibarr-10.0.0-before-24.0.0-missing-authorization-on-rest-users-groups-endpoint"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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-MG2W-X76X-59H8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-28 00:31 – Updated: 2026-03-10 15:31openDCIM version 23.04, through commit 4467e9c4, contains a missing authorization vulnerability in install.php and container-install.php. The installer and upgrade handler expose LDAP configuration functionality without enforcing application role checks. Any authenticated user can access this functionality regardless of assigned privileges. In deployments where REMOTE_USER is set without authentication enforcement, the endpoint may be accessible without credentials. This allows unauthorized modification of application configuration.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-28515"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-27T23:16:05Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "openDCIM version 23.04, through commit 4467e9c4, contains a missing authorization vulnerability in install.php and container-install.php. The installer and upgrade handler expose LDAP configuration functionality without enforcing application role checks. Any authenticated user can access this functionality regardless of assigned privileges. In deployments where REMOTE_USER is set without authentication enforcement, the endpoint may be accessible without credentials. This allows unauthorized modification of application configuration.",
"id": "GHSA-mg2w-x76x-59h8",
"modified": "2026-03-10T15:31:30Z",
"published": "2026-02-28T00:31:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-28515"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/opendcim/openDCIM/pull/1664"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/opendcim/openDCIM/pull/1664/changes/8f7ab2a710086a9c8c269560793e47c577ddda09"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://chocapikk.com/posts/2026/opendcim-sqli-to-rce"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Chocapikk/opendcim-exploit"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/opendcim/openDCIM/blob/4467e9c4/container-install.php#L421-L435"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/opendcim/openDCIM/blob/4467e9c4/install.php#L293"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/opendcim/openDCIM/blob/4467e9c4/install.php#L420-L434"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/opendcim-missing-authorization-in-install-php"
}
],
"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:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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"
}
]
}
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.