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-MJ59-PG4Q-VH88
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-11-08 15:31 – Updated: 2026-11-08 15:31Craft CMS from 5.0.0 before 5.11.2 contains an authorization bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to read content from sites outside a GraphQL schema's Sites scope. Attackers can send a POST request to /actions/graphql/api selecting the localized field without the siteId argument to disclose out-of-scope site content.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-124426"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-11-08T14:18:08Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Craft CMS from 5.0.0 before 5.11.2 contains an authorization bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to read content from sites outside a GraphQL schema\u0027s Sites scope. Attackers can send a POST request to /actions/graphql/api selecting the localized field without the siteId argument to disclose out-of-scope site content.",
"id": "GHSA-mj59-pg4q-vh88",
"modified": "2026-11-08T15:31:24Z",
"published": "2026-11-08T15:31:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/craftcms/cms/security/advisories/GHSA-mp59-9rf5-93wr"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-124426"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/craft-cms-before-5.11.2-graphql-sites-scope-bypass-via-localized-field"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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-MJ5R-JF49-M3W7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-04 19:45 – Updated: 2026-08-04 19:45Summary
On standard channels, the message update and delete handlers accepted any caller holding write access on the channel, without checking that the caller wrote the message. Write access is the same grant a member needs in order to post, so every ordinary participant in a shared channel could rewrite or permanently delete any other participant's messages. The group and direct message branch of the same handlers enforced authorship; the standard branch did not.
Preconditions
Channels are disabled by default and must be enabled by an administrator (ENABLE_CHANNELS). The channel must be a standard channel; group and direct message channels are not affected. The attacker is any authenticated account with role user that holds write access on the channel, whether granted publicly, per user, or through a group. No ownership of the channel, channel manager role, or elevated role is required. Channel and message ids are returned by the listing endpoints the member can already call.
Impact
An ordinary member could replace the content of another member's message while the message stayed attributed to its original author, and could attach arbitrary data and meta payloads to it through the same form. The member could also permanently delete other members' messages, up to the entire visible history of the channel. This is an integrity and availability loss against other users of the channel: content can be forged under a colleague's name and records can be destroyed. It reaches no further than channels the attacker already has write access to, and it discloses nothing the attacker could not already read as a member. Pinning is unaffected and is not part of this issue.
Fix
Fixed in c609ec411 (#27197), released in 0.11.0. Both handlers now apply the same authorship check the group and direct message branch already used, so a non-admin caller can act only on their own messages regardless of write access. Upgrading fully resolves it, with no configuration change required.
Root cause
Affected components:
- backend/open_webui/routers/channels.py, update_message_by_id (POST /api/v1/channels/{id}/messages/{message_id}/update)
- backend/open_webui/routers/channels.py, delete_message_by_id (DELETE /api/v1/channels/{id}/messages/{message_id}/delete)
Both handlers branch on channel type, and the two branches asked different questions. The group and direct message branch asked whether the caller wrote the message. The standard branch asked whether the caller is allowed to write in the channel, which is a permission level, not an identity. Those are not interchangeable: posting a message runs that same write check, so the grant that lets a member participate was silently accepted as the grant to rewrite and remove everyone else's content, and every ordinary participant satisfied it. The model layer looks messages up by primary key alone, so the router branch was the only authorization that ran.
Proof of concept
Reported with a script that runs end to end against a live instance. An administrator seeds the accounts and a standard channel granting read and write; everything after that is performed by a separate plain user account in no group that owns neither the channel nor any of the messages. That account edits a victim's message, attaches structured payloads to it, and deletes a second victim message, all returning 200, with the channel history dumped before and after. Controls in the same run confirm the scoping: a read-only member is refused with 403, and a cross-member edit on a group channel is refused with 403.
Credits
@Foxer131 — reported the missing authorship check on the standard-channel update and delete handlers.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.10.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "open-webui"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.5.0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.11.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-70481"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-08-04T19:45:39Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\nOn standard channels, the message update and delete handlers accepted any caller holding write access on the channel, without checking that the caller wrote the message. Write access is the same grant a member needs in order to post, so every ordinary participant in a shared channel could rewrite or permanently delete any other participant\u0027s messages. The group and direct message branch of the same handlers enforced authorship; the standard branch did not.\n\n## Preconditions\nChannels are disabled by default and must be enabled by an administrator (`ENABLE_CHANNELS`). The channel must be a standard channel; group and direct message channels are not affected. The attacker is any authenticated account with role `user` that holds write access on the channel, whether granted publicly, per user, or through a group. No ownership of the channel, channel manager role, or elevated role is required. Channel and message ids are returned by the listing endpoints the member can already call.\n\n## Impact\nAn ordinary member could replace the content of another member\u0027s message while the message stayed attributed to its original author, and could attach arbitrary `data` and `meta` payloads to it through the same form. The member could also permanently delete other members\u0027 messages, up to the entire visible history of the channel. This is an integrity and availability loss against other users of the channel: content can be forged under a colleague\u0027s name and records can be destroyed. It reaches no further than channels the attacker already has write access to, and it discloses nothing the attacker could not already read as a member. Pinning is unaffected and is not part of this issue.\n\n## Fix\nFixed in `c609ec411` (#27197), released in 0.11.0. Both handlers now apply the same authorship check the group and direct message branch already used, so a non-admin caller can act only on their own messages regardless of write access. Upgrading fully resolves it, with no configuration change required.\n\n## Root cause\nAffected components:\n- `backend/open_webui/routers/channels.py`, `update_message_by_id` (`POST /api/v1/channels/{id}/messages/{message_id}/update`)\n- `backend/open_webui/routers/channels.py`, `delete_message_by_id` (`DELETE /api/v1/channels/{id}/messages/{message_id}/delete`)\n\nBoth handlers branch on channel type, and the two branches asked different questions. The group and direct message branch asked whether the caller wrote the message. The standard branch asked whether the caller is allowed to write in the channel, which is a permission level, not an identity. Those are not interchangeable: posting a message runs that same write check, so the grant that lets a member participate was silently accepted as the grant to rewrite and remove everyone else\u0027s content, and every ordinary participant satisfied it. The model layer looks messages up by primary key alone, so the router branch was the only authorization that ran.\n\n## Proof of concept\nReported with a script that runs end to end against a live instance. An administrator seeds the accounts and a standard channel granting read and write; everything after that is performed by a separate plain `user` account in no group that owns neither the channel nor any of the messages. That account edits a victim\u0027s message, attaches structured payloads to it, and deletes a second victim message, all returning 200, with the channel history dumped before and after. Controls in the same run confirm the scoping: a read-only member is refused with 403, and a cross-member edit on a group channel is refused with 403.\n\n## Credits\n@Foxer131 \u2014 reported the missing authorship check on the standard-channel update and delete handlers.",
"id": "GHSA-mj5r-jf49-m3w7",
"modified": "2026-08-04T19:45:39Z",
"published": "2026-08-04T19:45:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/security/advisories/GHSA-mj5r-jf49-m3w7"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/pull/27197"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/commit/c609ec41154fa092fa0af80d9d365de06b666286"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/releases/tag/v0.11.0"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Open WebUI: Any member with write access to a standard channel can edit or delete other members\u0027 messages"
}
GHSA-MJ62-84WX-6GP9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-13 21:33 – Updated: 2026-10-13 21:33Aureus ERP through 1.6.0 contains an authorization bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to read unpublished draft blog posts via the customer-facing post view page. Attackers who know or guess a post slug can retrieve the full title, content, image, tags, author and publish date because PostResource skips authorization and ViewPost ignores is_published.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-110218"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-13T19:18:46Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Aureus ERP through 1.6.0 contains an authorization bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to read unpublished draft blog posts via the customer-facing post view page. Attackers who know or guess a post slug can retrieve the full title, content, image, tags, author and publish date because PostResource skips authorization and ViewPost ignores is_published.",
"id": "GHSA-mj62-84wx-6gp9",
"modified": "2026-10-13T21:33:38Z",
"published": "2026-10-13T21:33:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-110218"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/aureuserp/aureuserp"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/aureuserp/aureuserp/blob/v1.6.0/plugins/webkul/blogs/src/Filament/Customer/Resources/PostResource.php#L23"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/aureuserp/aureuserp/blob/v1.6.0/plugins/webkul/blogs/src/Filament/Customer/Resources/PostResource/Pages/ViewPost.php#L9-L24"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/aureuserp/aureuserp/releases/tag/v1.6.0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackmd.io/@leediay/ryPaE-t9fl"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/aureus-erp-through-1.6.0-unpublished-blog-post-disclosure-via-direct-url"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/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-MJ6C-RWFC-G9JH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-08 21:30 – Updated: 2026-07-08 21:30GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab EE affecting all versions from 18.9 before 18.11.7, 19.0 before 19.0.4, and 19.1 before 19.1.2 that under certain conditions could have allowed an authenticated user with minimal access permissions to read work item metadata from private projects due to missing authorization checks.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-8472"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-08T21:16:55Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab EE affecting all versions from 18.9 before 18.11.7, 19.0 before 19.0.4, and 19.1 before 19.1.2 that under certain conditions could have allowed an authenticated user with minimal access permissions to read work item metadata from private projects due to missing authorization checks.",
"id": "GHSA-mj6c-rwfc-g9jh",
"modified": "2026-07-08T21:30:31Z",
"published": "2026-07-08T21:30:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-8472"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/3615282"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.gitlab.com/releases/patches/patch-release-gitlab-19-1-2-released"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/work_items/599987"
}
],
"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-MJ6R-GCRW-4VFV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-23 15:31 – Updated: 2026-01-26 18:31Missing Authorization vulnerability in MyThemeShop WP Subscribe wp-subscribe allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects WP Subscribe: from n/a through <= 1.2.16.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-24522"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-23T15:16:07Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in MyThemeShop WP Subscribe wp-subscribe allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects WP Subscribe: from n/a through \u003c= 1.2.16.",
"id": "GHSA-mj6r-gcrw-4vfv",
"modified": "2026-01-26T18:31:28Z",
"published": "2026-01-23T15:31:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-24522"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/wp-subscribe/vulnerability/wordpress-wp-subscribe-plugin-1-2-16-broken-access-control-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-MJ6V-4WR4-GJ57
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-29 15:31 – Updated: 2025-11-05 20:53Jenkins Start Windocks Containers Plugin 1.4 and earlier does not perform a permission check in an HTTP endpoint.
This allows attackers with Overall/Read permission to connect to an attacker-specified URL.
Additionally, this endpoint does not require POST requests, resulting in a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability.
As of publication of this advisory, there is no fix.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.jenkins-ci.plugins:windocks-start-container"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "1.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-64139"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-10-29T22:04:34Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-29T14:15:58Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Jenkins Start Windocks Containers Plugin 1.4 and earlier does not perform a permission check in an HTTP endpoint.\n\nThis allows attackers with Overall/Read permission to connect to an attacker-specified URL.\n\nAdditionally, this endpoint does not require POST requests, resulting in a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability.\n\nAs of publication of this advisory, there is no fix.",
"id": "GHSA-mj6v-4wr4-gj57",
"modified": "2025-11-05T20:53:44Z",
"published": "2025-10-29T15:31:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-64139"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/windocks-start-container-plugin"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.jenkins.io/security/advisory/2025-10-29/#SECURITY-3531"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2025/10/29/2"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Jenkins Start Windocks Containers Plugin is missing a permission check"
}
GHSA-MJ6W-CX37-26H8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-15 15:31 – Updated: 2026-06-15 15:31Missing Authorization vulnerability in StylemixThemes MasterStudy LMS Pro allows Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs.
This issue affects MasterStudy LMS Pro: from n/a before 4.7.16.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-64215"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-15T14:16:32Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in StylemixThemes MasterStudy LMS Pro allows Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs.\n\nThis issue affects MasterStudy LMS Pro: from n/a before 4.7.16.",
"id": "GHSA-mj6w-cx37-26h8",
"modified": "2026-06-15T15:31:33Z",
"published": "2026-06-15T15:31:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-64215"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/masterstudy-lms-learning-management-system-pro/vulnerability/wordpress-masterstudy-lms-pro-plugin-4-7-16-broken-access-control-vulnerability-2?_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"
}
]
}
GHSA-MJ7C-V2G5-MRV5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-16 00:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:34Missing Authorization vulnerability in NotFound JetMenu allows Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs. This issue affects JetMenu: from n/a through 2.4.9.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-26953"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-15T22:15:19Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in NotFound JetMenu allows Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs. This issue affects JetMenu: from n/a through 2.4.9.",
"id": "GHSA-mj7c-v2g5-mrv5",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:34:43Z",
"published": "2025-04-16T00:31:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-26953"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/jet-menu/vulnerability/wordpress-jetmenu-2-4-9-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:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-MJ7J-8QCF-454P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-20 18:31 – Updated: 2026-02-25 00:31Missing Authorization vulnerability in Leadpages Leadpages leadpages allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Leadpages: from n/a through <= 1.1.3.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-68050"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-20T16:22:08Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Leadpages Leadpages leadpages allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Leadpages: from n/a through \u003c= 1.1.3.",
"id": "GHSA-mj7j-8qcf-454p",
"modified": "2026-02-25T00:31:21Z",
"published": "2026-02-20T18:31:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-68050"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/leadpages/vulnerability/wordpress-leadpages-plugin-1-1-3-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"
}
]
}
GHSA-MJ8V-3X8M-9RX7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-25 12:31 – Updated: 2026-07-27 06:30In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
NFSv4: include MAY_WRITE in open permission mask for O_TRUNC
POSIX requires write permission to truncate a file, so an open() that specifies O_TRUNC must be authorized for write access regardless of the O_ACCMODE access mode.
nfs_open_permission_mask() builds the access mask passed to nfs_may_open(), which is the local authorization gate for OPENs the client serves itself from a cached write delegation via the can_open_delegated() path in nfs4_try_open_cached(). The mask is derived from O_ACCMODE alone, so an open(O_RDONLY | O_TRUNC) against a file the caller cannot write requests only MAY_READ and passes the local check. The OPEN is then satisfied locally and the truncation is issued to the server as a SETATTR(size=0) over the delegation stateid, which the server accepts under standard write-delegation semantics. POSIX requires that this open fail with EACCES.
Include MAY_WRITE in the mask whenever O_TRUNC is set so the local check matches the access the server would have enforced.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-64298"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-25T10:17:10Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nNFSv4: include MAY_WRITE in open permission mask for O_TRUNC\n\nPOSIX requires write permission to truncate a file, so an open() that\nspecifies O_TRUNC must be authorized for write access regardless of the\nO_ACCMODE access mode.\n\nnfs_open_permission_mask() builds the access mask passed to\nnfs_may_open(), which is the local authorization gate for OPENs the\nclient serves itself from a cached write delegation via the\ncan_open_delegated() path in nfs4_try_open_cached(). The mask is\nderived from O_ACCMODE alone, so an open(O_RDONLY | O_TRUNC) against a\nfile the caller cannot write requests only MAY_READ and passes the\nlocal check. The OPEN is then satisfied locally and the truncation is\nissued to the server as a SETATTR(size=0) over the delegation stateid,\nwhich the server accepts under standard write-delegation semantics.\nPOSIX requires that this open fail with EACCES.\n\nInclude MAY_WRITE in the mask whenever O_TRUNC is set so the local\ncheck matches the access the server would have enforced.",
"id": "GHSA-mj8v-3x8m-9rx7",
"modified": "2026-07-27T06:30:31Z",
"published": "2026-07-25T12:31:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-64298"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/22c1fd1355ad4ca27aa7f0fa02719122dd92d9de"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/30fdf4df6c3c00efec947e4ddf97f0fdd4473628"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/4817c8974315b666e895b7d1bb83cd3664c323b1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/5140f099ecd8a2f2808b7f7b720ee1bad8468974"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/6bd7d0a06b53c4e797e1a9cea0d2d41aa1b26230"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/a937e92c1d00534b5c2e3e9f4381b7e988180797"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/cb148a2762d644bff1894728e8835a9a4b84f9ea"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e36501b7d4abdcd6d69a7cb901b2f286b7a3d041"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H",
"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.