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
20146 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-MVV5-62QM-F67X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-07-29 12:31 – Updated: 2025-07-29 12:31The Hydra Booking plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Privilege Escalation due to a missing capability check on the tfhb_reset_password_callback() function in versions 1.1.0 to 1.1.18. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to reset the password of an Administrator user, achieving full privilege escalation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-7689"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-07-29T10:15:29Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Hydra Booking plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Privilege Escalation due to a missing capability check on the tfhb_reset_password_callback() function in versions 1.1.0 to 1.1.18. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to reset the password of an Administrator user, achieving full privilege escalation.",
"id": "GHSA-mvv5-62qm-f67x",
"modified": "2025-07-29T12:31:21Z",
"published": "2025-07-29T12:31:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-7689"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3334439"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wordpress.org/plugins/hydra-booking/#developers"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/93027dd1-f36a-4954-a8d2-b77bbbaef6fb?source=cve"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-MVVF-M63R-WXWG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-24 09:30 – Updated: 2026-10-24 09:30Broken access control in JiraController in Cervantes version v1.3-beta could allow an attacker to create, edit, or delete Jira tickets for vulnerabilities in other projects
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-115975"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-24T08:16:52Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Broken access control in JiraController in Cervantes version v1.3-beta could allow an attacker to create, edit, or delete Jira tickets for vulnerabilities in other projects",
"id": "GHSA-mvvf-m63r-wxwg",
"modified": "2026-10-24T09:30:23Z",
"published": "2026-10-24T09:30:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-115975"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.grayback.es/advisories"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.grayback.es/en/advisories"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-MVX4-532P-XFM9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-24 16:55 – Updated: 2026-07-24 16:55Title: Scheduled automations continue after pending-user deactivation and stored model ACL revocation
Summary
Open WebUI documents pending as a zero-access role used for new sign-ups and deactivated users, and normal HTTP routes enforce that with get_verified_user() (which rejects pending), while automation create/update/run routes additionally require the features.automations permission. Two paths missed that lifecycle gate, so a deactivated (pending) account could keep acting through the background automation scheduler:
- Scheduler did not re-gate the owner. When a stored automation became due,
execute_automation()rehydrated the owner withUsers.get_user_by_id(...)and re-entered the chat completion pipeline without re-checking that the owner was stilluser/adminor still heldfeatures.automations. A still-active automation therefore kept running after its owner was deactivated. - Model ACL only enforced for exact role
user.check_model_access()applied private-model grants only whenuser.role == "user", so apendingprincipal fell through a branch that denies a normal non-owneruser.
Net effect: a deactivated account could continue scheduled chat generation through the background worker, consuming the operator's configured model-provider credentials and reaching a stored automation model ID that its current role/ACL state would no longer permit through normal routes.
Impact
A pending/deactivated account continues to execute due scheduled automations after its access has been revoked, consuming the operator's provider credentials, quota and shared capacity, and bypassing the private-model ACL for the automation's stored model ID. Exploitation requires a previously created active automation and a later transition to pending (deactivation or approval rollback), so it is bounded and not interactive. It does not grant unauthenticated access, account takeover, code execution, or cross-user data exfiltration.
Patched
In 0.10.0:
execute_automation()aborts and records an error unless the rehydrated owner is stilluseroradminand (for non-admins) still holdsfeatures.automations, so a deactivated or de-permissioned owner's due automation no longer runs.check_model_access()enforces model ACLs for every non-admin role rather than only the exact roleuser, so apendingor otherwise unrecognised role no longer falls through.
Credits
@rexpository
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "open-webui"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.9.0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.10.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-59226"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-862",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-24T16:55:30Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-09T17:17:04Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "**Title:** Scheduled automations continue after pending-user deactivation and stored model ACL revocation\n\n### Summary\n\nOpen WebUI documents `pending` as a zero-access role used for new sign-ups and deactivated users, and normal HTTP routes enforce that with `get_verified_user()` (which rejects `pending`), while automation create/update/run routes additionally require the `features.automations` permission. Two paths missed that lifecycle gate, so a deactivated (`pending`) account could keep acting through the background automation scheduler:\n\n1. **Scheduler did not re-gate the owner.** When a stored automation became due, `execute_automation()` rehydrated the owner with `Users.get_user_by_id(...)` and re-entered the chat completion pipeline without re-checking that the owner was still `user`/`admin` or still held `features.automations`. A still-active automation therefore kept running after its owner was deactivated.\n2. **Model ACL only enforced for exact role `user`.** `check_model_access()` applied private-model grants only when `user.role == \"user\"`, so a `pending` principal fell through a branch that denies a normal non-owner `user`.\n\nNet effect: a deactivated account could continue scheduled chat generation through the background worker, consuming the operator\u0027s configured model-provider credentials and reaching a stored automation model ID that its current role/ACL state would no longer permit through normal routes.\n\n### Impact\n\nA `pending`/deactivated account continues to execute due scheduled automations after its access has been revoked, consuming the operator\u0027s provider credentials, quota and shared capacity, and bypassing the private-model ACL for the automation\u0027s stored model ID. Exploitation requires a previously created active automation and a later transition to `pending` (deactivation or approval rollback), so it is bounded and not interactive. It does not grant unauthenticated access, account takeover, code execution, or cross-user data exfiltration.\n\n### Patched\n\nIn 0.10.0:\n\n- `execute_automation()` aborts and records an error unless the rehydrated owner is still `user` or `admin` and (for non-admins) still holds `features.automations`, so a deactivated or de-permissioned owner\u0027s due automation no longer runs.\n- `check_model_access()` enforces model ACLs for every non-admin role rather than only the exact role `user`, so a `pending` or otherwise unrecognised role no longer falls through.\n\n### Credits\n\n@rexpository",
"id": "GHSA-mvx4-532p-xfm9",
"modified": "2026-07-24T16:55:30Z",
"published": "2026-07-24T16:55:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/security/advisories/GHSA-mvx4-532p-xfm9"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-59226"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/pull/26047"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/commit/920b655f4689e2118de928fbc936f6ebd4fed396"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/releases/tag/v0.10.0"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Open WebUI: Scheduled automations continue after pending-user deactivation and stored model ACL revocation"
}
GHSA-MVXG-X6W9-JQ73
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-26 13:30 – Updated: 2026-05-26 13:30Missing Authorization vulnerability in SePay team SePay Gateway allows Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data.
This issue affects SePay Gateway: from n/a through 1.1.20.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-42763"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-25T23:16:32Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in SePay team SePay Gateway allows Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data.\n\nThis issue affects SePay Gateway: from n/a through 1.1.20.",
"id": "GHSA-mvxg-x6w9-jq73",
"modified": "2026-05-26T13:30:52Z",
"published": "2026-05-26T13:30:52Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-42763"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/sepay-gateway/vulnerability/wordpress-sepay-gateway-plugin-1-1-20-sensitive-data-exposure-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:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-MVXH-8C54-7FWX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-10 21:32 – Updated: 2026-10-19 12:31A flaw was found in Feast. An authorization bypass vulnerability exists in the /materialize and /materialize-incremental endpoints. By sending a specially crafted request that omits the feature_views field, an attacker can bypass intended permission checks. This allows an unauthenticated remote attacker, or any authenticated user, to trigger a full re-materialization of all feature views. The consequence is a Denial of Service (DoS) due to data corruption and significant resource consumption across all tenants.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-18947"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-10T21:17:21Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A flaw was found in Feast. An authorization bypass vulnerability exists in the /materialize and /materialize-incremental endpoints. By sending a specially crafted request that omits the feature_views field, an attacker can bypass intended permission checks. This allows an unauthenticated remote attacker, or any authenticated user, to trigger a full re-materialization of all feature views. The consequence is a Denial of Service (DoS) due to data corruption and significant resource consumption across all tenants.",
"id": "GHSA-mvxh-8c54-7fwx",
"modified": "2026-10-19T12:31:33Z",
"published": "2026-08-10T21:32:07Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-18947"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:53261"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:53263"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:84734"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-18947"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2511164"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-MVXP-973J-8W5F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:51 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:51SAP ERP Financials Information System (SAP_APPL 6.00, 6.02, 6.03, 6.04, 6.05, 6.06, 6.16; SAP_FIN 6.17, 6.18, 7.00, 7.20, 7.30 S4CORE 1.00, 1.01, 1.02) does not perform necessary authorization checks for an authenticated user, resulting in escalation of privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-2381"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2018-02-14T12:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "SAP ERP Financials Information System (SAP_APPL 6.00, 6.02, 6.03, 6.04, 6.05, 6.06, 6.16; SAP_FIN 6.17, 6.18, 7.00, 7.20, 7.30 S4CORE 1.00, 1.01, 1.02) does not perform necessary authorization checks for an authenticated user, resulting in escalation of privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-mvxp-973j-8w5f",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:51:07Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:51:07Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-2381"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blogs.sap.com/2018/02/13/sap-security-patch-day-february-2018"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://launchpad.support.sap.com/#/notes/2545842"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/103010"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-MW24-MH67-357P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-13 21:36 – Updated: 2026-08-13 21:36Missing Authorization (CWE-862) in Kibana can lead to unauthorized execution of Elastic Defend response actions on managed hosts via Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (CAPEC-1). A Kibana user who holds only detection rule authoring privileges for the Elastic Security solution can associate automated endpoint response actions with a detection rule, even though the dedicated Endpoint response action privileges that govern those capabilities (host isolation, process operations, and execute operations) have not been granted to that user. When such a rule generates alerts, the associated response actions are carried out against the matching hosts.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-72664"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-13T20:17:26Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization (CWE-862) in Kibana can lead to unauthorized execution of Elastic Defend response actions on managed hosts via Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (CAPEC-1). A Kibana user who holds only detection rule authoring privileges for the Elastic Security solution can associate automated endpoint response actions with a detection rule, even though the dedicated Endpoint response action privileges that govern those capabilities (host isolation, process operations, and execute operations) have not been granted to that user. When such a rule generates alerts, the associated response actions are carried out against the matching hosts.",
"id": "GHSA-mw24-mh67-357p",
"modified": "2026-08-13T21:36:09Z",
"published": "2026-08-13T21:36:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-72664"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://discuss.elastic.co/t/kibana-8-19-20-and-9-4-5-security-update-esa-2026-95/389527"
}
],
"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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-MW3G-QX2M-JG7R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-11 12:32 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:32Missing Authorization vulnerability in Ninja Team Notibar allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Notibar: from n/a through 2.1.4.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-54269"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-11T10:15:07Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Ninja Team Notibar allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Notibar: from n/a through 2.1.4.",
"id": "GHSA-mw3g-qx2m-jg7r",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:32:42Z",
"published": "2024-12-11T12:32:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-54269"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/notibar/vulnerability/wordpress-notibar-plugin-2-1-4-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:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-MW4H-MH8J-X3FF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-09 18:30 – Updated: 2026-01-20 15:32Missing Authorization vulnerability in bestwebsoft Contact Form by BestWebSoft contact-form-plugin allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Contact Form by BestWebSoft: from n/a through <= 4.3.5.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-63056"
],
"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 bestwebsoft Contact Form by BestWebSoft contact-form-plugin allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Contact Form by BestWebSoft: from n/a through \u003c= 4.3.5.",
"id": "GHSA-mw4h-mh8j-x3ff",
"modified": "2026-01-20T15:32:04Z",
"published": "2025-12-09T18:30:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-63056"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/contact-form-plugin/vulnerability/wordpress-contact-form-by-bestwebsoft-plugin-4-3-5-broken-access-control-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vdp.patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/contact-form-plugin/vulnerability/wordpress-contact-form-by-bestwebsoft-plugin-4-3-5-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-MW5F-8WGH-2M29
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-13 21:33 – Updated: 2026-10-13 21:33Phase Console through 2.77.3 contains a missing authorization vulnerability that allows organisation members without Secrets read permission to read secret history via the secretHistory GraphQL query. Attackers holding an environment key can supply a known secret identifier to retrieve encrypted secret events and decrypt values using their wrapped environment key.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-110210"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-13T19:18:44Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Phase Console through 2.77.3 contains a missing authorization vulnerability that allows organisation members without Secrets read permission to read secret history via the secretHistory GraphQL query. Attackers holding an environment key can supply a known secret identifier to retrieve encrypted secret events and decrypt values using their wrapped environment key.",
"id": "GHSA-mw5f-8wgh-2m29",
"modified": "2026-10-13T21:33:36Z",
"published": "2026-10-13T21:33:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-110210"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/phasehq/console"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/phasehq/console/blob/v2.77.3/backend/api/utils/access/permissions.py#L78-L92"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/phasehq/console/blob/v2.77.3/backend/backend/schema.py#L1022-L1052"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/phasehq/console/blob/v2.77.3/backend/backend/schema.py#L985-L1009"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackmd.io/@1ExmmukzRMWN7B4gQ4W-4Q/SyZJ_mjize"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/phase-console-through-2.77.3-missing-authorization-via-secrethistory-graphql-query"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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"
}
]
}
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.