CWE-863
Allowed-with-ReviewIncorrect Authorization
Abstraction: Class · Status: Incomplete
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
5678 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-3723-F7XR-2XGJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-17 21:31 – Updated: 2025-01-21 18:31WeGIA < 3.2.0 is vulnerable to Incorrect Access Control in controle/control.php. The application does not validate the value of the old password, so it is possible to change the password by placing any value in the senha_antiga field.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-57032"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-276",
"CWE-284",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-17T20:15:28Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "WeGIA \u003c 3.2.0 is vulnerable to Incorrect Access Control in controle/control.php. The application does not validate the value of the old password, so it is possible to change the password by placing any value in the senha_antiga field.",
"id": "GHSA-3723-f7xr-2xgj",
"modified": "2025-01-21T18:31:06Z",
"published": "2025-01-17T21:31:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-57032"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nmmorette/vulnerability-research/blob/main/CVE-2024-57032"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wegia.org"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-3737-XM99-HQ62
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-30 12:31 – Updated: 2026-01-30 12:31Due to inadequate access control, authenticated users of certain HIKSEMI NAS products can manipulate other users' file resources without proper authorization.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-22624"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-30T11:15:55Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Due to inadequate access control, authenticated users of certain HIKSEMI NAS products can manipulate other users\u0027 file resources without proper authorization.",
"id": "GHSA-3737-xm99-hq62",
"modified": "2026-01-30T12:31:20Z",
"published": "2026-01-30T12:31:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-22624"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.hiksemitech.com/en/hiksemi/support/security-advisory.html"
}
],
"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-373M-8W83-9JWP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-06-14 00:00 – Updated: 2022-06-23 00:00Improper access control vulnerability in Rakuten Casa version AP_F_V1_4_1 or AP_F_V2_0_0 allows a remote attacker to log in with the root privilege and perform an arbitrary operation if the product is in its default settings in which is set to accept SSH connections from the WAN side, and is also connected to the Internet with the authentication information unchanged from the default settings.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-28704"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-06-13T05:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Improper access control vulnerability in Rakuten Casa version AP_F_V1_4_1 or AP_F_V2_0_0 allows a remote attacker to log in with the root privilege and perform an arbitrary operation if the product is in its default settings in which is set to accept SSH connections from the WAN side, and is also connected to the Internet with the authentication information unchanged from the default settings.",
"id": "GHSA-373m-8w83-9jwp",
"modified": "2022-06-23T00:00:34Z",
"published": "2022-06-14T00:00:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-28704"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jvn.jp/en/jp/JVN46892984/index.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://network.mobile.rakuten.co.jp/information/news/product/1033"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-3754-735C-C4RM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-06-21 00:00 – Updated: 2022-06-29 00:00A vulnerability has been found in Adminer Login 1.4.4 and classified as problematic. This vulnerability affects unknown code. The manipulation leads to improper access controls. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-20066"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-06-20T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability has been found in Adminer Login 1.4.4 and classified as problematic. This vulnerability affects unknown code. The manipulation leads to improper access controls. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.",
"id": "GHSA-3754-735c-c4rm",
"modified": "2022-06-29T00:00:25Z",
"published": "2022-06-21T00:00:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-20066"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://sumofpwn.nl/advisory/2016/wordpress_adminer_plugin_allows_public__local__database_login.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.97384"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2017/Feb/96"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-3759-QV8M-9CV6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-09 18:30 – Updated: 2025-12-09 18:30An Incorrect Authorization vulnerability [CWE-863] in FortiPortal 7.4.0 through 7.4.5 may allow an authenticated attacker to reboot a shared FortiGate device via crafted HTTP requests.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-54838"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-09T18:15:54Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An Incorrect Authorization vulnerability [CWE-863] in FortiPortal 7.4.0 through 7.4.5 may allow an authenticated attacker to reboot a shared FortiGate device via crafted HTTP requests.",
"id": "GHSA-3759-qv8m-9cv6",
"modified": "2025-12-09T18:30:45Z",
"published": "2025-12-09T18:30:45Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-54838"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-25-032"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-3769-FJ8M-CRFP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-02 15:31 – Updated: 2024-12-03 18:31Incorrect access control in wms-Warehouse management system-zeqp v2.20.9.1 due to the token value of the zeqp system being reused.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-52732"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-02T15:15:12Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Incorrect access control in wms-Warehouse management system-zeqp v2.20.9.1 due to the token value of the zeqp system being reused.",
"id": "GHSA-3769-fj8m-crfp",
"modified": "2024-12-03T18:31:03Z",
"published": "2024-12-02T15:31:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-52732"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/LINF2009/fe2f0681389d4521d236a34ec2109a24"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/dotNetTreasury/WMS/blob/master/README.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/dotNetTreasury/WMS/tree/master/src"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-376R-8QWC-R5QG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:56 – Updated: 2024-04-04 01:55On NXP Kinetis KV1x, Kinetis KV3x, and Kinetis K8x devices, Flash Access Controls (FAC) (a software IP protection method for execute-only access) can be defeated by observing CPU registers and the effect of code/instruction execution.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-14237"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-09-12T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "On NXP Kinetis KV1x, Kinetis KV3x, and Kinetis K8x devices, Flash Access Controls (FAC) (a software IP protection method for execute-only access) can be defeated by observing CPU registers and the effect of code/instruction execution.",
"id": "GHSA-376r-8qwc-r5qg",
"modified": "2024-04-04T01:55:38Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:56:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-14237"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.usenix.org/system/files/woot19-paper_schink.pdf"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-3775-99MW-8RP4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-04 20:11 – Updated: 2026-05-13 13:39The fix for CVE-2026-31892 (commit 534f4ff) blocks podSpecPatch when templateReferencing: Strict is active, but doesn't restrict other WorkflowSpec fields that flow through the same merge path and get applied to pods. A user can set hostNetwork: true, override serviceAccountName, or change securityContext on their Workflow while referencing a hardened template -- these survive JoinWorkflowSpec and get applied at pod creation.
The check in setExecWorkflow gates on HasPodSpecPatch() only:
if woc.controller.Config.WorkflowRestrictions.MustUseReference() && woc.wf.Spec.HasPodSpecPatch() {
Everything else passes through. createWorkflowPod reads hostNetwork, securityContext, serviceAccountName, tolerations, and automountServiceAccountToken from the merged spec and applies them directly to the pod.
JoinWorkflowSpec constructs the merge target from the user's spec and applies the template as a patch -- user fields take priority. When the template doesn't explicitly set a field like hostNetwork (most won't -- false is the zero value and gets omitted), the user's true survives. For fields like securityContext and serviceAccountName, the template-level value takes precedence IF the template explicitly sets it. The bypass applies when the template relies on defaults.
Both Strict and Secure modes are affected. Secure stores the merged spec on first submission, so user overrides get baked into the stored spec and subsequent MustNotChangeSpec comparisons pass.
Steps to reproduce
Tested on v4.0.2 (the CVE-2026-31892 patched version) on kind v0.27.0 / K8s v1.35.0.
# enable strict mode
kubectl patch configmap workflow-controller-configmap -n argo --type merge \
-p '{"data":{"workflowRestrictions":"templateReferencing: Strict\n"}}'
kubectl rollout restart deployment workflow-controller -n argo
A template that lists network interfaces:
cat <<'EOF' | kubectl apply -n argo -f -
apiVersion: argoproj.io/v1alpha1
kind: WorkflowTemplate
metadata:
name: netcheck
spec:
entrypoint: check
templates:
- name: check
container:
image: alpine:latest
command: ["/bin/sh", "-c"]
args: ["ip addr show | grep -E '^[0-9]+:' | cut -d: -f2"]
EOF
Submit a workflow with hostNetwork: true:
cat <<'EOF' | kubectl create -n argo -f -
apiVersion: argoproj.io/v1alpha1
kind: Workflow
metadata:
generateName: bypass-
spec:
workflowTemplateRef:
name: netcheck
hostNetwork: true
EOF
Pod gets host networking:
$ kubectl get pod -n argo -l workflows.argoproj.io/workflow=bypass-bmg9b -o jsonpath='{.items[0].spec.hostNetwork}'
true
Container without the override sees eth0@if20. With the override, the pod sees the host's full network namespace -- all veth interfaces for other containers on the node.
podSpecPatch IS correctly blocked on the same cluster:
$ kubectl get workflow patched-check-jd272 -n argo -o jsonpath='{.status.message}'
podSpecPatch is not permitted when using workflowTemplateRef with templateReferencing restriction
serviceAccountName override also works -- a workflow with serviceAccountName: argo-server creates a pod running under the argo-server SA instead of the namespace default:
$ kubectl get pod -n argo -l workflows.argoproj.io/workflow=bypass-sa-slmjs -o jsonpath='{.items[0].spec.serviceAccountName}'
argo-server
Tested in Secure mode as well -- same result. Pod created with hostNetwork: true before the workflow errors on an unrelated permission issue.
Impact
A user with create Workflow permission can bypass templateReferencing: Strict to get host network access, switch service accounts, override pod security context, add tolerations to schedule on control-plane nodes, or enable SA token mounting. This defeats the stated purpose of the feature.
The practical impact depends on what Kubernetes-level controls are in place. Clusters with PodSecurity admission or OPA/Gatekeeper would independently block some of these (like hostNetwork). Clusters that rely on Argo's Strict mode as the primary enforcement layer are fully exposed.
Fix direction
The check in setExecWorkflow should cover all WorkflowSpec fields that influence pod security posture, not just podSpecPatch. The affected fields that I confirmed in createWorkflowPod: hostNetwork, securityContext, serviceAccountName, automountServiceAccountToken, tolerations, dnsPolicy, schedulerName, hostAliases, volumes.
An alternative approach: when MustUseReference() is true, strip all user-set WorkflowSpec fields except a known-safe allowlist (entrypoint, arguments, labels, annotations) before merging. This avoids a growing denylist as new fields get added.
Affected versions
All versions supporting templateReferencing, including v4.0.2 and v3.7.11 which patched CVE-2026-31892.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/v3"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.7.14"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/v4"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.0.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-42296"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-04T20:11:38Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-09T04:16:25Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The fix for CVE-2026-31892 (commit 534f4ff) blocks `podSpecPatch` when `templateReferencing: Strict` is active, but doesn\u0027t restrict other WorkflowSpec fields that flow through the same merge path and get applied to pods. A user can set `hostNetwork: true`, override `serviceAccountName`, or change `securityContext` on their Workflow while referencing a hardened template -- these survive `JoinWorkflowSpec` and get applied at pod creation.\n\nThe check in `setExecWorkflow` gates on `HasPodSpecPatch()` only:\n\n```go\nif woc.controller.Config.WorkflowRestrictions.MustUseReference() \u0026\u0026 woc.wf.Spec.HasPodSpecPatch() {\n```\n\nEverything else passes through. `createWorkflowPod` reads `hostNetwork`, `securityContext`, `serviceAccountName`, `tolerations`, and `automountServiceAccountToken` from the merged spec and applies them directly to the pod.\n\n`JoinWorkflowSpec` constructs the merge target from the user\u0027s spec and applies the template as a patch -- user fields take priority. When the template doesn\u0027t explicitly set a field like `hostNetwork` (most won\u0027t -- `false` is the zero value and gets omitted), the user\u0027s `true` survives. For fields like `securityContext` and `serviceAccountName`, the template-level value takes precedence IF the template explicitly sets it. The bypass applies when the template relies on defaults.\n\nBoth `Strict` and `Secure` modes are affected. `Secure` stores the merged spec on first submission, so user overrides get baked into the stored spec and subsequent `MustNotChangeSpec` comparisons pass.\n\n## Steps to reproduce\n\nTested on v4.0.2 (the CVE-2026-31892 patched version) on kind v0.27.0 / K8s v1.35.0.\n\n```bash\n# enable strict mode\nkubectl patch configmap workflow-controller-configmap -n argo --type merge \\\n -p \u0027{\"data\":{\"workflowRestrictions\":\"templateReferencing: Strict\\n\"}}\u0027\nkubectl rollout restart deployment workflow-controller -n argo\n```\n\nA template that lists network interfaces:\n\n```bash\ncat \u003c\u003c\u0027EOF\u0027 | kubectl apply -n argo -f -\napiVersion: argoproj.io/v1alpha1\nkind: WorkflowTemplate\nmetadata:\n name: netcheck\nspec:\n entrypoint: check\n templates:\n - name: check\n container:\n image: alpine:latest\n command: [\"/bin/sh\", \"-c\"]\n args: [\"ip addr show | grep -E \u0027^[0-9]+:\u0027 | cut -d: -f2\"]\nEOF\n```\n\nSubmit a workflow with `hostNetwork: true`:\n\n```bash\ncat \u003c\u003c\u0027EOF\u0027 | kubectl create -n argo -f -\napiVersion: argoproj.io/v1alpha1\nkind: Workflow\nmetadata:\n generateName: bypass-\nspec:\n workflowTemplateRef:\n name: netcheck\n hostNetwork: true\nEOF\n```\n\nPod gets host networking:\n\n```\n$ kubectl get pod -n argo -l workflows.argoproj.io/workflow=bypass-bmg9b -o jsonpath=\u0027{.items[0].spec.hostNetwork}\u0027\ntrue\n```\n\nContainer without the override sees `eth0@if20`. With the override, the pod sees the host\u0027s full network namespace -- all veth interfaces for other containers on the node.\n\n`podSpecPatch` IS correctly blocked on the same cluster:\n\n```\n$ kubectl get workflow patched-check-jd272 -n argo -o jsonpath=\u0027{.status.message}\u0027\npodSpecPatch is not permitted when using workflowTemplateRef with templateReferencing restriction\n```\n\n`serviceAccountName` override also works -- a workflow with `serviceAccountName: argo-server` creates a pod running under the `argo-server` SA instead of the namespace default:\n\n```\n$ kubectl get pod -n argo -l workflows.argoproj.io/workflow=bypass-sa-slmjs -o jsonpath=\u0027{.items[0].spec.serviceAccountName}\u0027\nargo-server\n```\n\nTested in Secure mode as well -- same result. Pod created with `hostNetwork: true` before the workflow errors on an unrelated permission issue.\n\n## Impact\n\nA user with `create Workflow` permission can bypass `templateReferencing: Strict` to get host network access, switch service accounts, override pod security context, add tolerations to schedule on control-plane nodes, or enable SA token mounting. This defeats the stated purpose of the feature.\n\nThe practical impact depends on what Kubernetes-level controls are in place. Clusters with PodSecurity admission or OPA/Gatekeeper would independently block some of these (like `hostNetwork`). Clusters that rely on Argo\u0027s Strict mode as the primary enforcement layer are fully exposed.\n\n## Fix direction\n\nThe check in `setExecWorkflow` should cover all WorkflowSpec fields that influence pod security posture, not just `podSpecPatch`. The affected fields that I confirmed in `createWorkflowPod`: `hostNetwork`, `securityContext`, `serviceAccountName`, `automountServiceAccountToken`, `tolerations`, `dnsPolicy`, `schedulerName`, `hostAliases`, `volumes`.\n\nAn alternative approach: when `MustUseReference()` is true, strip all user-set WorkflowSpec fields except a known-safe allowlist (entrypoint, arguments, labels, annotations) before merging. This avoids a growing denylist as new fields get added.\n\n## Affected versions\n\nAll versions supporting `templateReferencing`, including v4.0.2 and v3.7.11 which patched CVE-2026-31892.",
"id": "GHSA-3775-99mw-8rp4",
"modified": "2026-05-13T13:39:21Z",
"published": "2026-05-04T20:11:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/security/advisories/GHSA-3775-99mw-8rp4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/security/advisories/GHSA-3wf5-g532-rcrr"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-42296"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/commit/2727f3f701677d467dfb5e053c57237cbc752c3c"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/commit/534f4ff1cbd86908e8ff76d97d553ad5a49a950d"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/releases/tag/v3.7.14"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/releases/tag/v4.0.5"
}
],
"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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Argo has incomplete fix for CVE-2026-31892: hostNetwork, securityContext, serviceAccountName bypass templateReferencing Strict/Secure"
}
GHSA-37F6-M354-672C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-03-08 00:00 – Updated: 2022-03-17 00:02The UsersWP WordPress plugin before 1.2.3.1 is missing access controls when updating a user avatar, and does not make sure file names for user avatars are unique, allowing a logged in user to overwrite another users avatar.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-0442"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-639",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-03-07T09:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The UsersWP WordPress plugin before 1.2.3.1 is missing access controls when updating a user avatar, and does not make sure file names for user avatars are unique, allowing a logged in user to overwrite another users avatar.",
"id": "GHSA-37f6-m354-672c",
"modified": "2022-03-17T00:02:55Z",
"published": "2022-03-08T00:00:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-0442"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/9cf0822a-c9d6-4ebc-b905-95b143d1a692"
}
],
"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-37JG-QM7M-782R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:17 – Updated: 2023-07-18 15:30Tad Honor viewing book list function is vulnerable to authorization bypass, thus remote attackers can use special parameters to delete articles arbitrarily without logging in.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-41564"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-10-08T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Tad Honor viewing book list function is vulnerable to authorization bypass, thus remote attackers can use special parameters to delete articles arbitrarily without logging in.",
"id": "GHSA-37jg-qm7m-782r",
"modified": "2023-07-18T15:30:33Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:17:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-41564"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.twcert.org.tw/tw/cp-132-5168-52304-1.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
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.
No CAPEC attack patterns related to this CWE.