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-PFCQ-4GJR-6GJM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-22 19:24 – Updated: 2026-04-27 16:22Missing Admin Auth on Notification Target Endpoints in RustFS
Finding Summary
All four notification target admin API endpoints in rustfs/src/admin/handlers/event.rs use a check_permissions helper that validates authentication only (access key + session token), without performing any admin-action authorization via validate_admin_request. Every other admin handler in the codebase correctly calls validate_admin_request with a specific AdminAction. This is the only admin handler file that skips authorization.
A non-admin user can overwrite a shared admin-defined notification target by name, causing subsequent bucket events to be delivered to an attacker-controlled endpoint. This enables cross-user event interception and audit evasion.
What Was Proven Live
- Authorization bypass on all four endpoints (03_readonly_user_bypass.py)
- PUT, GET list, GET arns, DELETE all return 200 for readonly-user
- Control routes (list-users, kms/status) correctly return 403
-
Unauthenticated requests correctly rejected (403 Signature required)
-
SSRF via health probe (04_ssrf_listener_landing.py)
- HEAD request from rustfs container to attacker-controlled listener
-
No host validation: only scheme check (http/https)
-
Target hijacking and event exfiltration (05_target_hijacking.py, 06_full_event_exfil.py)
- Readonly-user overwrites admin-configured target URL by name
- Subsequent S3 events delivered to attacker-controlled endpoint
-
Captured event body includes object keys, bucket names, user identities, and request metadata
-
Audit evasion (05_target_hijacking.py)
- Readonly-user can delete unbound targets
- Readonly-user can overwrite bound targets (silently redirecting events)
Escalation Vectors Tested But Not Viable
- Self-referencing webhook to admin API (13_self_referencing_test.py)
- Webhook sends unsigned POST with event JSON body
- Admin endpoints require SigV4 auth -- unsigned request rejected
-
"Confused deputy" via self-referencing does NOT work
-
Protocol smuggling via non-HTTP targets
- Only 2 target types implemented: webhook and MQTT (
event.rs:613enforces this) - No Redis, Kafka, AMQP, or other protocol targets exist
- CRLF injection in webhook config fields sanitized by reqwest
-
MQTT uses rumqttc (pure Rust binary protocol client), no raw TCP injection
-
MQTT target for RCE
- No unsafe code in MQTT handler
- rumqttc 0.29.0 has no known public CVEs
-
No Command::new, template engines, or deserialization of broker responses
-
Unauth access
- Endpoints correctly reject unauthenticated requests (403)
- Endpoints correctly reject invalid credentials (403)
Prior Art
No existing advisory covers notification target endpoints. 11 published GHSAs on rustfs/rustfs cover different handlers. Closest: - CVE-2026-22042 (ImportIam wrong action constant) -- same bug class, different file - CVE-2026-22043 (deny_only short-circuit) -- different bug class
Recommendation
Submit via GitHub PVR. The finding is well-supported with live PoC, code references, and clear root cause. The fix is straightforward (add validate_admin_request calls to event.rs handlers). Core submission should reference 2-3 focused PoC scripts (readonly bypass, target hijack, event exfil), not the full set of 13 exploratory scripts.
Koda Reef
Patch
This issue has been patched in version https://github.com/rustfs/rustfs/releases/tag/1.0.0-alpha.94.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "rustfs"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "0.0.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-40937"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-22T19:24:53Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-22T21:17:08Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "# Missing Admin Auth on Notification Target Endpoints in RustFS\n\n\n### Finding Summary\n\nAll four notification target admin API endpoints in `rustfs/src/admin/handlers/event.rs` use a `check_permissions` helper that validates authentication only (access key + session token), without performing any admin-action authorization via `validate_admin_request`. Every other admin handler in the codebase correctly calls `validate_admin_request` with a specific `AdminAction`. This is the only admin handler file that skips authorization.\n\nA non-admin user can overwrite a shared admin-defined notification target by name, causing subsequent bucket events to be delivered to an attacker-controlled endpoint. This enables cross-user event interception and audit evasion.\n\n### What Was Proven Live\n\n1. **Authorization bypass on all four endpoints** (03_readonly_user_bypass.py)\n - PUT, GET list, GET arns, DELETE all return 200 for readonly-user\n - Control routes (list-users, kms/status) correctly return 403\n - Unauthenticated requests correctly rejected (403 Signature required)\n\n2. **SSRF via health probe** (04_ssrf_listener_landing.py)\n - HEAD request from rustfs container to attacker-controlled listener\n - No host validation: only scheme check (http/https)\n\n3. **Target hijacking and event exfiltration** (05_target_hijacking.py, 06_full_event_exfil.py)\n - Readonly-user overwrites admin-configured target URL by name\n - Subsequent S3 events delivered to attacker-controlled endpoint\n - Captured event body includes object keys, bucket names, user identities, and request metadata\n\n4. **Audit evasion** (05_target_hijacking.py)\n - Readonly-user can delete unbound targets\n - Readonly-user can overwrite bound targets (silently redirecting events)\n\n### Escalation Vectors Tested But Not Viable\n\n1. **Self-referencing webhook to admin API** (13_self_referencing_test.py)\n - Webhook sends unsigned POST with event JSON body\n - Admin endpoints require SigV4 auth -- unsigned request rejected\n - \"Confused deputy\" via self-referencing does NOT work\n\n2. **Protocol smuggling via non-HTTP targets**\n - Only 2 target types implemented: webhook and MQTT (`event.rs:613` enforces this)\n - No Redis, Kafka, AMQP, or other protocol targets exist\n - CRLF injection in webhook config fields sanitized by reqwest\n - MQTT uses rumqttc (pure Rust binary protocol client), no raw TCP injection\n\n3. **MQTT target for RCE**\n - No unsafe code in MQTT handler\n - rumqttc 0.29.0 has no known public CVEs\n - No Command::new, template engines, or deserialization of broker responses\n\n4. **Unauth access**\n - Endpoints correctly reject unauthenticated requests (403)\n - Endpoints correctly reject invalid credentials (403)\n\n### Prior Art\n\nNo existing advisory covers notification target endpoints. 11 published GHSAs on rustfs/rustfs cover different handlers. Closest:\n- CVE-2026-22042 (ImportIam wrong action constant) -- same bug class, different file\n- CVE-2026-22043 (deny_only short-circuit) -- different bug class\n\n### Recommendation\n\nSubmit via GitHub PVR. The finding is well-supported with live PoC, code references, and clear root cause. The fix is straightforward (add `validate_admin_request` calls to event.rs handlers). Core submission should reference 2-3 focused PoC scripts (readonly bypass, target hijack, event exfil), not the full set of 13 exploratory scripts.\n\n\nKoda Reef\n\n### Patch\nThis issue has been patched in version https://github.com/rustfs/rustfs/releases/tag/1.0.0-alpha.94.",
"id": "GHSA-pfcq-4gjr-6gjm",
"modified": "2026-04-27T16:22:58Z",
"published": "2026-04-22T19:24:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rustfs/rustfs/security/advisories/GHSA-pfcq-4gjr-6gjm"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-40937"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/rustfs/rustfs"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rustfs/rustfs/releases/tag/1.0.0-alpha.94"
}
],
"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:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "RustFS: Missing admin authorization on notification target endpoints allows unauthenticated configuration of event webhooks"
}
GHSA-PFG6-CJ3J-RPV4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-09-06 15:30 – Updated: 2024-01-30 23:19A missing permission check in Jenkins AWS CodeCommit Trigger Plugin 3.0.12 and earlier allows attackers with Overall/Read permission to enumerate credentials IDs of AWS credentials stored in Jenkins.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.jenkins-ci.plugins:aws-codecommit-trigger"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "3.0.12"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-41941"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-01-30T23:19:45Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-09-06T13:15:11Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A missing permission check in Jenkins AWS CodeCommit Trigger Plugin 3.0.12 and earlier allows attackers with Overall/Read permission to enumerate credentials IDs of AWS credentials stored in Jenkins.",
"id": "GHSA-pfg6-cj3j-rpv4",
"modified": "2024-01-30T23:19:45Z",
"published": "2023-09-06T15:30:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-41941"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.jenkins.io/security/advisory/2023-09-06/#SECURITY-3101%20(1)"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/09/06/9"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Missing permission check in Jenkins AWS CodeCommit Trigger Plugin allows enumerating credentials IDs"
}
GHSA-PFGH-RFC5-Q7F6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-11-10 18:31 – Updated: 2026-11-10 18:31Apache TomEE running on JDK 21 or later skips EJB method authorization checks, allowing callers to invoke EJB methods without the configured access restrictions being enforced. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 10.3.0 or 11.0.0-M2, which fix the issue.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-86336"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-11-10T16:17:24Z",
"severity": null
},
"details": "Apache TomEE running on JDK 21 or later skips EJB method authorization checks, allowing callers to invoke EJB methods without the configured access restrictions being enforced. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 10.3.0 or 11.0.0-M2, which fix the issue.",
"id": "GHSA-pfgh-rfc5-q7f6",
"modified": "2026-11-10T18:31:42Z",
"published": "2026-11-10T18:31:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-86336"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/tv0407xmnpy4qctqm9nzx56lgjln2t4j"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-PFGW-Q4GX-XGV3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-19 15:32 – Updated: 2026-08-19 15:32Unauthenticated Broken Access Control in Taxi Booking Manager for WooCommerce < 2.0.8 versions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-73363"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-19T13:18:07Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Unauthenticated Broken Access Control in Taxi Booking Manager for WooCommerce \u003c 2.0.8 versions.",
"id": "GHSA-pfgw-q4gx-xgv3",
"modified": "2026-08-19T15:32:25Z",
"published": "2026-08-19T15:32:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-73363"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/ecab-taxi-booking-manager/vulnerability/wordpress-taxi-booking-manager-for-woocommerce-plugin-2-0-8-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:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-PFGX-5CQM-92JC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-12 09:31 – Updated: 2024-12-12 09:31The Hash Form – Drag & Drop Form Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized access due to a missing capability check when creating form styles in all versions up to, and including, 1.2.1. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to create new form styles.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-12201"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-12T07:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Hash Form \u2013 Drag \u0026 Drop Form Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized access due to a missing capability check when creating form styles in all versions up to, and including, 1.2.1. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to create new form styles.",
"id": "GHSA-pfgx-5cqm-92jc",
"modified": "2024-12-12T09:31:35Z",
"published": "2024-12-12T09:31:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-12201"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail=\u0026reponame=\u0026old=3205245%40hash-form\u0026new=3205245%40hash-form\u0026sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail="
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/bb81b2ce-583b-411c-b0f5-a233e0d1986b?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-PFJJ-R8PF-VQ9C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-13 21:31 – Updated: 2026-03-13 21:31Missing Authorization vulnerability in Agile Logix Post Timeline post-timeline allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Post Timeline: from n/a through <= 2.4.1.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-32421"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-13T19:54:59Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Agile Logix Post Timeline post-timeline allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Post Timeline: from n/a through \u003c= 2.4.1.",
"id": "GHSA-pfjj-r8pf-vq9c",
"modified": "2026-03-13T21:31:50Z",
"published": "2026-03-13T21:31:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-32421"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/post-timeline/vulnerability/wordpress-post-timeline-plugin-2-4-1-broken-access-control-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-PFJM-C66Q-6WWP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-25 09:30 – Updated: 2026-04-08 21:33The Youzify – BuddyPress Community, User Profile, Social Network & Membership Plugin for WordPress plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized access due to a missing capability check on the save_addon_key_license() function in all versions up to, and including, 1.3.2. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to update arbitrary options to a value of a valid license key.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-13370"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-25T08:15:08Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Youzify \u2013 BuddyPress Community, User Profile, Social Network \u0026 Membership Plugin for WordPress plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized access due to a missing capability check on the save_addon_key_license() function in all versions up to, and including, 1.3.2. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to update arbitrary options to a value of a valid license key.",
"id": "GHSA-pfjm-c66q-6wwp",
"modified": "2026-04-08T21:33:00Z",
"published": "2025-01-25T09:30:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-13370"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/youzify/tags/1.3.2/includes/admin/class-youzify-admin.php?desc=1#L1348"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/youzify/tags/1.3.3/includes/admin/class-youzify-admin.php?desc=1#L1348"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail=\u0026reponame=\u0026old=3236422%40youzify\u0026new=3236422%40youzify\u0026sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail="
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/f234d676-86ac-47ab-b8b3-b0459cbb4538?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-PFJW-QRG6-HR62
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-15 21:36 – Updated: 2026-10-15 21:36Missing Authorization vulnerability in Planet studio PlanetStudio Payment Gateway planetstudio-payment-gateway allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects PlanetStudio Payment Gateway: from n/a through 1.3.3.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-110362"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-15T19:17:22Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Planet studio PlanetStudio Payment Gateway planetstudio-payment-gateway allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects PlanetStudio Payment Gateway: from n/a through 1.3.3.",
"id": "GHSA-pfjw-qrg6-hr62",
"modified": "2026-10-15T21:36:02Z",
"published": "2026-10-15T21:36:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-110362"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/planetstudio-payment-gateway/vulnerability/wordpress-planetstudio-payment-gateway-plugin-1-3-3-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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-PFP7-6F7H-5C65
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-11-13 12:31 – Updated: 2026-11-13 12:31OpenEMR before 8.5.0 contains a missing authorization vulnerability that allows authenticated users lacking nationnotes/nn_configure to modify shared Nation Notes templates by calling mutation endpoints directly. Attackers can send requests to ajax_code.php or add_context.php, which lack ACL and CSRF checks, to tamper with clinical-note templates and assignments.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-126448"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-11-13T10:17:52Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "OpenEMR before 8.5.0 contains a missing authorization vulnerability that allows authenticated users lacking nationnotes/nn_configure to modify shared Nation Notes templates by calling mutation endpoints directly. Attackers can send requests to ajax_code.php or add_context.php, which lack ACL and CSRF checks, to tamper with clinical-note templates and assignments.",
"id": "GHSA-pfp7-6f7h-5c65",
"modified": "2026-11-13T12:31:26Z",
"published": "2026-11-13T12:31:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openemr/openemr/security/advisories/GHSA-m4cw-vx96-p6fj"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-126448"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openemr-before-8.5.0-missing-authorization-in-nation-notes-configuration-handlers"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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-PFR6-C3MM-P2GM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-11-06 18:32 – Updated: 2026-01-20 15:31Missing Authorization vulnerability in e4jvikwp VikBooking Hotel Booking Engine & PMS vikbooking.This issue affects VikBooking Hotel Booking Engine & PMS: from n/a through <= 1.8.2.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-5803"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-11-06T16:16:02Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in e4jvikwp VikBooking Hotel Booking Engine \u0026 PMS vikbooking.This issue affects VikBooking Hotel Booking Engine \u0026 PMS: from n/a through \u003c= 1.8.2.",
"id": "GHSA-pfr6-c3mm-p2gm",
"modified": "2026-01-20T15:31:49Z",
"published": "2025-11-06T18:32:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-5803"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/vikbooking/vulnerability/wordpress-vikbooking-hotel-booking-engine-pms-plugin-1-8-2-broken-access-control-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vdp.patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/vikbooking/vulnerability/wordpress-vikbooking-hotel-booking-engine-pms-plugin-1-8-2-broken-access-control-vulnerability"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vdp.patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/vikbooking/vulnerability/wordpress-vikbooking-hotel-booking-engine-pms-plugin-1-8-2-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: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.