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
20196 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-P9QG-3FH2-PJ3P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-11-07 06:31 – Updated: 2026-11-07 06:31The Redux Framework plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versions up to, and including, 4.5.16. This is due to the plugin not properly verifying that a user is authorized to perform an action. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level access and above, to export the entire Redux options panel configuration — including API keys, SMTP credentials, licence keys, and third-party tokens — that is otherwise restricted to administrators. Exploitation requires that a theme or plugin registers a Redux import_export field on a user profile via Redux_Users::set_profile(), which causes the nonce to be printed into the subscriber's own /wp-admin/profile.php page source, making it directly readable without any additional privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-110705"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-11-07T05:18:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Redux Framework plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versions up to, and including, 4.5.16. This is due to the plugin not properly verifying that a user is authorized to perform an action. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level access and above, to export the entire Redux options panel configuration \u2014 including API keys, SMTP credentials, licence keys, and third-party tokens \u2014 that is otherwise restricted to administrators. Exploitation requires that a theme or plugin registers a Redux import_export field on a user profile via Redux_Users::set_profile(), which causes the nonce to be printed into the subscriber\u0027s own /wp-admin/profile.php page source, making it directly readable without any additional privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-p9qg-3fh2-pj3p",
"modified": "2026-11-07T06:31:15Z",
"published": "2026-11-07T06:31:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-110705"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/reduxframework/redux-framework/pull/4125"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/redux-framework/tags/4.5.16/redux-core/inc/extensions/import_export/class-redux-extension-import-export.php#L103"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/redux-framework/tags/4.5.16/redux-core/inc/extensions/import_export/class-redux-extension-import-export.php#L147"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/redux-framework/tags/4.5.16/redux-core/inc/extensions/import_export/class-redux-extension-import-export.php#L52"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/redux-framework/tags/4.5.16/redux-core/inc/extensions/import_export/import_export/class-redux-import-export.php#L69"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/redux-framework/tags/4.5.16/redux-core/inc/extensions/users/class-redux-extension-users.php#L709"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/redux-framework/tags/4.5.17/redux-core/inc/extensions/import_export/class-redux-extension-import-export.php"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/414534fa-80d0-4885-8c13-c9a8e707665b?source=cve"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-P9QR-RF97-2VHP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-13 18:30 – Updated: 2025-12-13 18:30The Easy Theme Options plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Missing Authorization in all versions up to, and including, 1.0. This is due to missing authorization checks in the eto_import_settings function. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to import arbitrary plugin settings via the 'eto_import_settings' parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-14367"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-13T16:16:48Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Easy Theme Options plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Missing Authorization in all versions up to, and including, 1.0. This is due to missing authorization checks in the eto_import_settings function. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to import arbitrary plugin settings via the \u0027eto_import_settings\u0027 parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-p9qr-rf97-2vhp",
"modified": "2025-12-13T18:30:21Z",
"published": "2025-12-13T18:30:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-14367"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/easy-theme-options/tags/1.0/easy-theme-options.php#L277"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/easy-theme-options/tags/1.0/easy-theme-options.php#L282"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/8405e80d-fd72-4d87-b08a-19a686eb2982?source=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-P9R2-GGHQ-HC57
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:18 – Updated: 2022-12-06 21:57Jenkins Multijob plugin version 1.25 and earlier did not check permissions in the Resume Build action, allowing anyone with Job/Read permission to resume the build. Multijob plugin 1.26 introduced a permission check requiring Overall/Administer. This was lowered to Job/Build in version 1.27.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.25"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.jenkins-ci.plugins:jenkins-multijob-plugin"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.26"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-1000390"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-12-06T21:57:50Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2018-01-26T02:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Jenkins Multijob plugin version 1.25 and earlier did not check permissions in the Resume Build action, allowing anyone with Job/Read permission to resume the build. Multijob plugin 1.26 introduced a permission check requiring Overall/Administer. This was lowered to Job/Build in version 1.27.",
"id": "GHSA-p9r2-gghq-hc57",
"modified": "2022-12-06T21:57:50Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:18:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-1000390"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jenkins.io/security/advisory/2017-10-23"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/102824"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Jenkins Multijob plugin did not check permissions in the Resume Build action"
}
GHSA-P9R4-469W-3CPX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-27 03:30 – Updated: 2026-01-20 15:31Missing Authorization vulnerability in Joby Joseph SEO Meta Description Updater seo-meta-description-updater allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects SEO Meta Description Updater: from n/a through <= 1.2.0.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-62928"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-27T02:15:52Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Joby Joseph SEO Meta Description Updater seo-meta-description-updater allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects SEO Meta Description Updater: from n/a through \u003c= 1.2.0.",
"id": "GHSA-p9r4-469w-3cpx",
"modified": "2026-01-20T15:31:36Z",
"published": "2025-10-27T03:30:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-62928"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/seo-meta-description-updater/vulnerability/wordpress-seo-meta-description-updater-plugin-1-2-0-broken-access-control-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vdp.patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/seo-meta-description-updater/vulnerability/wordpress-seo-meta-description-updater-plugin-1-2-0-broken-access-control-vulnerability"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vdp.patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/seo-meta-description-updater/vulnerability/wordpress-seo-meta-description-updater-plugin-1-2-0-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:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-P9R9-6J46-V8MH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-14 03:30 – Updated: 2026-10-14 03:30The Booking Package plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versions up to, and including, 1.7.29 This is due to the plugin not properly verifying that a user is authorized to perform an action. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to retrieve personally identifiable information for every booked customer stored in the booking_package_booked_customers table, including names, email addresses, phone numbers, physical addresses, and cancellation tokens. The nonce nominally protecting the endpoint is a public CSRF token emitted in the localized booking_package JavaScript object on any page rendering the [booking_package] shortcode or widget, making it trivially harvestable by unauthenticated visitors and providing no effective authentication barrier.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-103423"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-14T02:16:54Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Booking Package plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versions up to, and including, 1.7.29 This is due to the plugin not properly verifying that a user is authorized to perform an action. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to retrieve personally identifiable information for every booked customer stored in the booking_package_booked_customers table, including names, email addresses, phone numbers, physical addresses, and cancellation tokens. The nonce nominally protecting the endpoint is a public CSRF token emitted in the localized booking_package JavaScript object on any page rendering the [booking_package] shortcode or widget, making it trivially harvestable by unauthenticated visitors and providing no effective authentication barrier.",
"id": "GHSA-p9r9-6j46-v8mh",
"modified": "2026-10-14T03:30:38Z",
"published": "2026-10-14T03:30:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-103423"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/booking-package/tags/1.7.29/index.php#L241"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/booking-package/tags/1.7.29/index.php#L4383"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/booking-package/tags/1.7.29/lib/Schedule.php#L10030"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/booking-package/tags/1.7.29/lib/Schedule.php#L6611"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/booking-package/tags/1.7.29/lib/Schedule.php#L7087"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3728015/booking-package/trunk/lib/Schedule.php"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/10063035-5f91-4dbe-b559-ea5be50d6950?source=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-P9X4-6H28-9Q9R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-02-20 12:31 – Updated: 2025-02-20 12:31The LTL Freight Quotes – GlobalTranz Edition plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the engtz_wd_save_dropship AJAX endpoint in all versions up to, and including, 2.3.12. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the drop shipping settings.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-1483"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-02-20T10:15:12Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The LTL Freight Quotes \u2013 GlobalTranz Edition plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the engtz_wd_save_dropship AJAX endpoint in all versions up to, and including, 2.3.12. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the drop shipping settings.",
"id": "GHSA-p9x4-6h28-9q9r",
"modified": "2025-02-20T12:31:15Z",
"published": "2025-02-20T12:31:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-1483"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3243002"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/0906e9b0-5093-4ddd-8868-8fcaad8e3a5b?source=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-P9X7-3XVX-2H65
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-27 03:30 – Updated: 2026-01-20 15:31Missing Authorization vulnerability in WPWebinarSystem WebinarPress wp-webinarsystem allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects WebinarPress: from n/a through <= 1.33.28.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-62972"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-27T02:15:57Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in WPWebinarSystem WebinarPress wp-webinarsystem allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects WebinarPress: from n/a through \u003c= 1.33.28.",
"id": "GHSA-p9x7-3xvx-2h65",
"modified": "2026-01-20T15:31:37Z",
"published": "2025-10-27T03:30:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-62972"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/wp-webinarsystem/vulnerability/wordpress-webinarpress-plugin-1-33-28-broken-access-control-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vdp.patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/wp-webinarsystem/vulnerability/wordpress-webinarpress-plugin-1-33-28-broken-access-control-vulnerability"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vdp.patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/wp-webinarsystem/vulnerability/wordpress-webinarpress-plugin-1-33-28-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-PC24-753J-GMQF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:44 – Updated: 2023-10-26 21:48Jenkins Ansible Tower Plugin did not perform permission checks on a method implementing form validation. This allowed users with Overall/Read access to Jenkins to connect to an attacker-specified URL using attacker-specified credentials IDs obtained through another method, capturing credentials stored in Jenkins.
Additionally, this form validation method did not require POST requests, resulting in a cross-site request forgery vulnerability.
This form validation method now requires POST requests and Overall/Administer permissions.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.9.1"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.jenkins-ci.plugins:ansible-tower"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.9.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-10311"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-10-26T21:48:24Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2019-04-30T13:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Jenkins Ansible Tower Plugin did not perform permission checks on a method implementing form validation. This allowed users with Overall/Read access to Jenkins to connect to an attacker-specified URL using attacker-specified credentials IDs obtained through another method, capturing credentials stored in Jenkins.\n\nAdditionally, this form validation method did not require POST requests, resulting in a cross-site request forgery vulnerability.\n\nThis form validation method now requires POST requests and Overall/Administer permissions.",
"id": "GHSA-pc24-753j-gmqf",
"modified": "2023-10-26T21:48:24Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:44:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-10311"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20200227073756/http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/108159"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.jenkins.io/security/advisory/2019-04-30/#SECURITY-1355%20(1)"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2019/04/30/5"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Jenkins Ansible Tower Plugin missing permission check"
}
GHSA-PC2P-CPVM-QG7R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-09 15:31 – Updated: 2026-04-28 21:35Missing Authorization vulnerability in Shaon Easy Google Analytics for WordPress allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Easy Google Analytics for WordPress: from n/a through 1.6.0.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-23887"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-09T13:15:21Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Shaon Easy Google Analytics for WordPress allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Easy Google Analytics for WordPress: from n/a through 1.6.0.",
"id": "GHSA-pc2p-cpvm-qg7r",
"modified": "2026-04-28T21:35:16Z",
"published": "2024-12-09T15:31:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-23887"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/easy-google-analytics-for-wordpress/vulnerability/wordpress-easy-google-analytics-for-wordpress-plugin-1-6-0-broken-access-control-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-PC2W-4MQ8-32QW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-29 15:36 – Updated: 2026-07-29 15:36Summary
A missing human-approval gate on the create_dynatrace_notebook tool allows a caller to create persistent tenant-visible documents containing arbitrary content (including embedded DQL that other users execute when opening the notebook) without operator consent.
Details
dynatrace-mcp-server registers six write tools: send_slack_message, send_email, send_event, create_workflow_for_notification, make_workflow_public, and create_dynatrace_notebook. Five of these call requestHumanApproval() before executing the side-effect, which elicits the operator's explicit consent through the MCP elicitation protocol. The CHANGELOG explicitly states these approval gates were added "to ensure user consent and prevent unintended actions."
create_dynatrace_notebook does not call requestHumanApproval(). The tool was introduced in a separate release from the approval-gate retrofit and was left ungated. As a result, a caller can create persistent, tenant-visible Dynatrace notebooks containing arbitrary content with no operator confirmation. Notebooks can include embedded DQL queries that later execute under the permissions of any tenant user who opens them.
The vulnerable code is in src/index.ts, lines 1563-1601:
tool(
'create_dynatrace_notebook',
'Create Dynatrace Notebook',
'Create a new notebook in the Dynatrace platform ...',
{
name: z.string().describe(/* ... */),
description: z.string().optional().describe(/* ... */),
content: z.array(z.object({
type: z.enum(['dql', 'markdown']),
text: z.string(),
})).describe(/* ... */),
},
{
readOnlyHint: false,
},
async ({ name, content, description }) => {
const dtClient = await createAuthenticatedHttpClient(allRequiredScopes);
const data = await createDynatraceNotebook(dtClient, name, content, description);
// No requestHumanApproval() call.
// No destructiveHint annotation.
// Scopes requested are allRequiredScopes (the broadest possible set)
// even though only document:documents:write is needed.
return data
? `Document created successfully: ${dtEnvironment}/ui/apps/dynatrace.notebooks/notebook/${data.id}`
: 'document creation failed';
},
);
By comparison, every other write tool calls requestHumanApproval() as its first action:
send_email(line 1274):const approved = await requestHumanApproval(...);send_slack_message(line 652):const approved = await requestHumanApproval(...);send_event(line 1367):const approved = await requestHumanApproval(...);create_workflow_for_notification(line 1069):const approved = await requestHumanApproval(...);make_workflow_public(line 1118):const approved = await requestHumanApproval(...);
PoC
Tested end-to-end against a real Dynatrace tenant. The MCP server was started in HTTP mode with the operator's Platform Token:
export DT_ENVIRONMENT=https://<tenant>.apps.dynatrace.com
export DT_PLATFORM_TOKEN=dt0s16....
npx -y @dynatrace-oss/dynatrace-mcp-server@1.8.5 --http --port 3000
A single unauthenticated POST from a process with no Dynatrace credentials of its own:
curl -sS http://127.0.0.1:3000/ \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-H 'Accept: application/json, text/event-stream' \
-d '{
"jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 1, "method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"name": "create_dynatrace_notebook",
"arguments": {
"name": "Unapproved notebook",
"description": "Created without operator approval.",
"content": [
{"type": "markdown", "text": "# This notebook was created without approval"},
{"type": "dql", "text": "fetch logs | limit 10"}
]
}
}
}'
The response:
event: message
data: {"result":{"content":[{"type":"text","text":"Document created successfully:
https://<tenant>.apps.dynatrace.com/ui/apps/dynatrace.notebooks/notebook/<uuid>"}]},
"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1}
The notebook is visible in the operator's Notebooks app within seconds. No elicitation prompt was sent to any operator client.
By contrast, the same harness invoking send_email or send_slack_message returns:
"Operation cancelled: Human approval was not granted for sending this email."
The gate logic exists and is wired up for all other write tools - it is simply missing on create_dynatrace_notebook.
Impact
- A caller (an unauthenticated network attacker over the HTTP transport when authentication is missing, or a prompt-injected LLM in stdio mode) can silently create persistent tenant-visible documents.
- The notebook content is attacker-controlled. Embedded DQL queries execute under the permissions of any tenant user who later opens the notebook - a stored-DQL pattern that crosses identity boundaries within the tenant.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@dynatrace-oss/dynatrace-mcp-server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.8.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-29T15:36:19Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "### Summary\nA missing human-approval gate on the `create_dynatrace_notebook` tool allows a caller to create persistent tenant-visible documents containing arbitrary content (including embedded DQL that other users execute when opening the notebook) without operator consent.\n\n### Details\n`dynatrace-mcp-server` registers six write tools: `send_slack_message`, `send_email`, `send_event`, `create_workflow_for_notification`, `make_workflow_public`, and `create_dynatrace_notebook`. Five of these call `requestHumanApproval()` before executing the side-effect, which elicits the operator\u0027s explicit consent through the MCP elicitation protocol. The CHANGELOG explicitly states these approval gates were added \"to ensure user consent and prevent unintended actions.\"\n\n`create_dynatrace_notebook` does not call `requestHumanApproval()`. The tool was introduced in a separate release from the approval-gate retrofit and was left ungated. As a result, a caller can create persistent, tenant-visible Dynatrace notebooks containing arbitrary content with no operator confirmation. Notebooks can include embedded DQL queries that later execute under the permissions of any tenant user who opens them.\n\nThe vulnerable code is in `src/index.ts`, lines 1563-1601:\n\n```typescript\ntool(\n \u0027create_dynatrace_notebook\u0027,\n \u0027Create Dynatrace Notebook\u0027,\n \u0027Create a new notebook in the Dynatrace platform ...\u0027,\n {\n name: z.string().describe(/* ... */),\n description: z.string().optional().describe(/* ... */),\n content: z.array(z.object({\n type: z.enum([\u0027dql\u0027, \u0027markdown\u0027]),\n text: z.string(),\n })).describe(/* ... */),\n },\n {\n readOnlyHint: false,\n },\n async ({ name, content, description }) =\u003e {\n const dtClient = await createAuthenticatedHttpClient(allRequiredScopes);\n const data = await createDynatraceNotebook(dtClient, name, content, description);\n // No requestHumanApproval() call.\n // No destructiveHint annotation.\n // Scopes requested are allRequiredScopes (the broadest possible set)\n // even though only document:documents:write is needed.\n\n return data\n ? `Document created successfully: ${dtEnvironment}/ui/apps/dynatrace.notebooks/notebook/${data.id}`\n : \u0027document creation failed\u0027;\n },\n);\n```\n\nBy comparison, every other write tool calls `requestHumanApproval()` as its first action:\n\n- `send_email` (line 1274): `const approved = await requestHumanApproval(...);`\n- `send_slack_message` (line 652): `const approved = await requestHumanApproval(...);`\n- `send_event` (line 1367): `const approved = await requestHumanApproval(...);`\n- `create_workflow_for_notification` (line 1069): `const approved = await requestHumanApproval(...);`\n- `make_workflow_public` (line 1118): `const approved = await requestHumanApproval(...);`\n\n\n### PoC\nTested end-to-end against a real Dynatrace tenant. The MCP server was started in HTTP mode with the operator\u0027s Platform Token:\n\n```bash\nexport DT_ENVIRONMENT=https://\u003ctenant\u003e.apps.dynatrace.com\nexport DT_PLATFORM_TOKEN=dt0s16....\nnpx -y @dynatrace-oss/dynatrace-mcp-server@1.8.5 --http --port 3000\n```\n\nA single unauthenticated POST from a process with no Dynatrace credentials of its own:\n\n```bash\ncurl -sS http://127.0.0.1:3000/ \\\n -H \u0027Content-Type: application/json\u0027 \\\n -H \u0027Accept: application/json, text/event-stream\u0027 \\\n -d \u0027{\n \"jsonrpc\": \"2.0\", \"id\": 1, \"method\": \"tools/call\",\n \"params\": {\n \"name\": \"create_dynatrace_notebook\",\n \"arguments\": {\n \"name\": \"Unapproved notebook\",\n \"description\": \"Created without operator approval.\",\n \"content\": [\n {\"type\": \"markdown\", \"text\": \"# This notebook was created without approval\"},\n {\"type\": \"dql\", \"text\": \"fetch logs | limit 10\"}\n ]\n }\n }\n }\u0027\n```\n\nThe response:\n\n```\nevent: message\ndata: {\"result\":{\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Document created successfully:\n https://\u003ctenant\u003e.apps.dynatrace.com/ui/apps/dynatrace.notebooks/notebook/\u003cuuid\u003e\"}]},\n \"jsonrpc\":\"2.0\",\"id\":1}\n```\n\nThe notebook is visible in the operator\u0027s Notebooks app within seconds. No elicitation prompt was sent to any operator client.\n\nBy contrast, the same harness invoking `send_email` or `send_slack_message` returns:\n\n```\n\"Operation cancelled: Human approval was not granted for sending this email.\"\n```\n\nThe gate logic exists and is wired up for all other write tools - it is simply missing on `create_dynatrace_notebook`.\n\n\n### Impact\n- A caller (an unauthenticated network attacker over the HTTP transport when authentication is missing, or a prompt-injected LLM in stdio mode) can silently create persistent tenant-visible documents.\n- The notebook content is attacker-controlled. Embedded DQL queries execute under the permissions of any tenant user who later opens the notebook - a stored-DQL pattern that crosses identity boundaries within the tenant.",
"id": "GHSA-pc2w-4mq8-32qw",
"modified": "2026-07-29T15:36:19Z",
"published": "2026-07-29T15:36:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/dynatrace-oss/dynatrace-mcp/security/advisories/GHSA-pc2w-4mq8-32qw"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/dynatrace-oss/dynatrace-mcp/pull/529"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/dynatrace-oss/dynatrace-mcp/commit/2851d3ce29d834c93b67f0db903c10e0b488e7ac"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/dynatrace-oss/dynatrace-mcp"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/dynatrace-oss/dynatrace-mcp/releases/tag/v1.8.7"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "@dynatrace-oss/dynatrace-mcp-server\u0027s create_dynatrace_notebook missing the human-approval gate"
}
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.