GCVE Workshop - 22 September 2026 (14:00-18:00), Luxembourg Before The Vulnopticon Conference - Registration
Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-863

Allowed-with-Review

Incorrect Authorization

Abstraction: Class · Status: Incomplete

API response cwe.mitre.org

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.

6623 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.

GHSA-2C6V-8R3V-GH6P

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-17 18:43 – Updated: 2026-02-19 21:14
VLAI
Summary
Gogs has a Protected Branch Deletion Bypass in Web Interface
Details

Summary

An access control bypass vulnerability in Gogs web interface allows any repository collaborator with Write permissions to delete protected branches (including the default branch) by sending a direct POST request, completely bypassing the branch protection mechanism. This vulnerability enables privilege escalation from Write to Admin level, allowing low-privilege users to perform dangerous operations that should be restricted to administrators only.

Although Git Hook layer correctly prevents protected branch deletion via SSH push, the web interface deletion operation does not trigger Git Hooks, resulting in complete bypass of protection mechanisms.

Details

Affected Component

  • File: internal/route/repo/branch.go
  • Function: DeleteBranchPost (lines 110-155)
  • Route Configuration: internal/cmd/web.go:589 go m.Post("/delete/*", reqSignIn, reqRepoWriter, repo.DeleteBranchPost)

Root Cause

The DeleteBranchPost function performs the following checks when deleting a branch: 1. ✅ User authentication (reqSignIn) 2. ✅ Write permission check (reqRepoWriter) 3. ✅ Branch existence verification 4. ✅ CommitID matching (optional parameter) 5. ❌ Missing protected branch check 6. ❌ Missing default branch check

While the UI layer (internal/route/repo/issue.go:646-658) correctly checks protected branch status and hides the delete button, attackers can directly construct POST requests to bypass UI restrictions.

Vulnerable Code

Vulnerable implementation (internal/route/repo/branch.go:110-155):

```110:155:internal/route/repo/branch.go func DeleteBranchPost(c context.Context) { branchName := c.Params("") commitID := c.Query("commit")

defer func() {
    redirectTo := c.Query("redirect_to")
    if !tool.IsSameSiteURLPath(redirectTo) {
        redirectTo = c.Repo.RepoLink
    }
    c.Redirect(redirectTo)
}()

if !c.Repo.GitRepo.HasBranch(branchName) {
    return
}
if len(commitID) > 0 {
    branchCommitID, err := c.Repo.GitRepo.BranchCommitID(branchName)
    if err != nil {
        log.Error("Failed to get commit ID of branch %q: %v", branchName, err)
        return
    }

    if branchCommitID != commitID {
        c.Flash.Error(c.Tr("repo.pulls.delete_branch_has_new_commits"))
        return
    }
}

// 🔴 Vulnerability: Missing protected branch check here
// Should add check like:
// protectBranch, err := database.GetProtectBranchOfRepoByName(c.Repo.Repository.ID, branchName)
// if protectBranch != nil && protectBranch.Protected { ... }

if err := c.Repo.GitRepo.DeleteBranch(branchName, git.DeleteBranchOptions{
    Force: true,
}); err != nil {
    log.Error("Failed to delete branch %q: %v", branchName, err)
    return
}

if err := database.PrepareWebhooks(c.Repo.Repository, database.HookEventTypeDelete, &api.DeletePayload{
    Ref:        branchName,
    RefType:    "branch",
    PusherType: api.PUSHER_TYPE_USER,
    Repo:       c.Repo.Repository.APIFormatLegacy(nil),
    Sender:     c.User.APIFormat(),
}); err != nil {
    log.Error("Failed to prepare webhooks for %q: %v", database.HookEventTypeDelete, err)
    return
}

}


**Correct implementation in Git Hook** (`internal/cmd/hook.go:122-125`):

```go
// check and deletion
if newCommitID == git.EmptyID {
    fail(fmt.Sprintf("Branch '%s' is protected from deletion", branchName), "")
}

Correct UI layer check (internal/route/repo/issue.go:646-658):

protectBranch, err := database.GetProtectBranchOfRepoByName(pull.BaseRepoID, pull.HeadBranch)
if err != nil {
    if !database.IsErrBranchNotExist(err) {
        c.Error(err, "get protect branch of repository by name")
        return
    }
} else {
    branchProtected = protectBranch.Protected
}

c.Data["IsPullBranchDeletable"] = pull.BaseRepoID == pull.HeadRepoID &&
    c.Repo.IsWriter() && c.Repo.GitRepo.HasBranch(pull.HeadBranch) &&
    !branchProtected  // UI layer has check, but backend doesn't

PoC

Prerequisites

  1. Have Write permissions to the target repository (collaborator or team member)
  2. Target repository has protected branches configured (e.g., main, master, develop)
  3. Access to Gogs web interface

Send Malicious POST Request

# Directly send DELETE request bypassing UI protection
curl -X POST \
  -b cookies.txt \
  -H "Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded" \
  -d "_csrf=YOUR_CSRF_TOKEN" \
  "https://gogs.example.com/username/repo/branches/delete/main"

image

Impact

  • Bypass branch protection mechanism: The core function of protected branches is to prevent deletion, and this vulnerability completely undermines this mechanism
  • Delete default branch: Can cause repository to become inaccessible (git clone/pull failures)
  • Bypass code review: After deleting protected branch, can push new branch bypassing Pull Request requirements
  • Privilege escalation: Writer permission users can perform operations that should only be allowed for Admins
Severity
7.1 (High)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Go",
        "name": "gogs.io/gogs"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.14.1"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-25232"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-17T18:43:00Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-02-19T07:17:45Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "## Summary\n\nAn access control bypass vulnerability in Gogs web interface allows any repository collaborator with Write permissions to delete protected branches (including the default branch) by sending a direct POST request, completely bypassing the branch protection mechanism. This vulnerability enables privilege escalation from Write to Admin level, allowing low-privilege users to perform dangerous operations that should be restricted to administrators only.\n\nAlthough Git Hook layer correctly prevents protected branch deletion via SSH push, the web interface deletion operation does not trigger Git Hooks, resulting in complete bypass of protection mechanisms.\n\n## Details\n\n### Affected Component\n\n- **File**: `internal/route/repo/branch.go`\n- **Function**: `DeleteBranchPost` (lines 110-155)\n- **Route Configuration**: `internal/cmd/web.go:589`\n  ```go\n  m.Post(\"/delete/*\", reqSignIn, reqRepoWriter, repo.DeleteBranchPost)\n  ```\n\n### Root Cause\n\nThe `DeleteBranchPost` function performs the following checks when deleting a branch:\n1. \u2705 User authentication (`reqSignIn`)\n2. \u2705 Write permission check (`reqRepoWriter`)\n3. \u2705 Branch existence verification\n4. \u2705 CommitID matching (optional parameter)\n5. \u274c **Missing protected branch check**\n6. \u274c **Missing default branch check**\n\nWhile the UI layer (`internal/route/repo/issue.go:646-658`) correctly checks protected branch status and hides the delete button, attackers can directly construct POST requests to bypass UI restrictions.\n\n### Vulnerable Code\n\n**Vulnerable implementation** (`internal/route/repo/branch.go:110-155`):\n\n```110:155:internal/route/repo/branch.go\nfunc DeleteBranchPost(c *context.Context) {\n\tbranchName := c.Params(\"*\")\n\tcommitID := c.Query(\"commit\")\n\n\tdefer func() {\n\t\tredirectTo := c.Query(\"redirect_to\")\n\t\tif !tool.IsSameSiteURLPath(redirectTo) {\n\t\t\tredirectTo = c.Repo.RepoLink\n\t\t}\n\t\tc.Redirect(redirectTo)\n\t}()\n\n\tif !c.Repo.GitRepo.HasBranch(branchName) {\n\t\treturn\n\t}\n\tif len(commitID) \u003e 0 {\n\t\tbranchCommitID, err := c.Repo.GitRepo.BranchCommitID(branchName)\n\t\tif err != nil {\n\t\t\tlog.Error(\"Failed to get commit ID of branch %q: %v\", branchName, err)\n\t\t\treturn\n\t\t}\n\n\t\tif branchCommitID != commitID {\n\t\t\tc.Flash.Error(c.Tr(\"repo.pulls.delete_branch_has_new_commits\"))\n\t\t\treturn\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\n\t// \ud83d\udd34 Vulnerability: Missing protected branch check here\n\t// Should add check like:\n\t// protectBranch, err := database.GetProtectBranchOfRepoByName(c.Repo.Repository.ID, branchName)\n\t// if protectBranch != nil \u0026\u0026 protectBranch.Protected { ... }\n\n\tif err := c.Repo.GitRepo.DeleteBranch(branchName, git.DeleteBranchOptions{\n\t\tForce: true,\n\t}); err != nil {\n\t\tlog.Error(\"Failed to delete branch %q: %v\", branchName, err)\n\t\treturn\n\t}\n\n\tif err := database.PrepareWebhooks(c.Repo.Repository, database.HookEventTypeDelete, \u0026api.DeletePayload{\n\t\tRef:        branchName,\n\t\tRefType:    \"branch\",\n\t\tPusherType: api.PUSHER_TYPE_USER,\n\t\tRepo:       c.Repo.Repository.APIFormatLegacy(nil),\n\t\tSender:     c.User.APIFormat(),\n\t}); err != nil {\n\t\tlog.Error(\"Failed to prepare webhooks for %q: %v\", database.HookEventTypeDelete, err)\n\t\treturn\n\t}\n}\n```\n\n**Correct implementation in Git Hook** (`internal/cmd/hook.go:122-125`):\n\n```go\n// check and deletion\nif newCommitID == git.EmptyID {\n    fail(fmt.Sprintf(\"Branch \u0027%s\u0027 is protected from deletion\", branchName), \"\")\n}\n```\n\n**Correct UI layer check** (`internal/route/repo/issue.go:646-658`):\n\n```go\nprotectBranch, err := database.GetProtectBranchOfRepoByName(pull.BaseRepoID, pull.HeadBranch)\nif err != nil {\n\tif !database.IsErrBranchNotExist(err) {\n\t\tc.Error(err, \"get protect branch of repository by name\")\n\t\treturn\n\t}\n} else {\n\tbranchProtected = protectBranch.Protected\n}\n\nc.Data[\"IsPullBranchDeletable\"] = pull.BaseRepoID == pull.HeadRepoID \u0026\u0026\n\tc.Repo.IsWriter() \u0026\u0026 c.Repo.GitRepo.HasBranch(pull.HeadBranch) \u0026\u0026\n\t!branchProtected  // UI layer has check, but backend doesn\u0027t\n```\n## PoC\n\n### Prerequisites\n\n1. Have Write permissions to the target repository (collaborator or team member)\n2. Target repository has protected branches configured (e.g., main, master, develop)\n3. Access to Gogs web interface\n\n#### Send Malicious POST Request\n```bash\n# Directly send DELETE request bypassing UI protection\ncurl -X POST \\\n  -b cookies.txt \\\n  -H \"Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded\" \\\n  -d \"_csrf=YOUR_CSRF_TOKEN\" \\\n  \"https://gogs.example.com/username/repo/branches/delete/main\"\n```\n\u003cimg width=\"1218\" height=\"518\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/745da7c3-6139-408c-9747-ccbe9ea8548f\" /\u003e\n\n## Impact\n- **Bypass branch protection mechanism**: The core function of protected branches is to prevent deletion, and this vulnerability completely undermines this mechanism\n- **Delete default branch**: Can cause repository to become inaccessible (git clone/pull failures)\n- **Bypass code review**: After deleting protected branch, can push new branch bypassing Pull Request requirements\n- **Privilege escalation**: Writer permission users can perform operations that should only be allowed for Admins",
  "id": "GHSA-2c6v-8r3v-gh6p",
  "modified": "2026-02-19T21:14:56Z",
  "published": "2026-02-17T18:43:00Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/gogs/gogs/security/advisories/GHSA-2c6v-8r3v-gh6p"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-25232"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/gogs/gogs/pull/8124"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/gogs/gogs/commit/7b7e38c88007a7c482dbf31efff896185fd9b79c"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/gogs/gogs"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/gogs/gogs/releases/tag/v0.14.1"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Gogs has a Protected Branch Deletion Bypass in Web Interface"
}

GHSA-2C79-H2H5-G3FW

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:19 – Updated: 2022-12-16 20:33
VLAI
Summary
Multiple vulnerabilities allow bypassing path filtering of agent-to-controller access control in Jenkins
Details

The agent-to-controller security subsystem limits which files on the Jenkins controller can be accessed by agent processes.

Multiple vulnerabilities in the file path filtering implementation of Jenkins 2.318 and earlier, LTS 2.303.2 and earlier allow agent processes to read and write arbitrary files on the Jenkins controller file system, and obtain some information about Jenkins controller file systems.

SECURITY-2531 / CVE-2021-21691: Creating symbolic links is possible without the symlink permission.

We expect that most of these vulnerabilities have been present since SECURITY-144 was addressed in the 2014-10-30 security advisory.

Jenkins 2.319, LTS 2.303.3 addresses these security vulnerabilities.

SECURITY-2531 / CVE-2021-21691: Creating symbolic links now correctly checks the symlink permission.

As some common operations are now newly subject to access control, it is expected that plugins sending commands from agents to the controller may start failing. Additionally, the newly introduced path canonicalization means that instances using a custom builds directory (Java system property jenkins.model.Jenkins.buildsDir) or partitioning JENKINS_HOME using symbolic links may fail access control checks. See the documentation for how to customize the configuration in case of problems.

If you are unable to immediately upgrade to Jenkins 2.319, LTS 2.303.3, you can install the Remoting Security Workaround Plugin. It will prevent all agent-to-controller file access using FilePath APIs. Because it is more restrictive than Jenkins 2.319, LTS 2.303.3, more plugins are incompatible with it. Make sure to read the plugin documentation before installing it.

Severity
9.0 (Critical)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.303.2"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.303.3"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.318"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "2.304"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.319"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-21691"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-59",
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2022-06-23T06:48:06Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-11-04T17:15:00Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "The agent-to-controller security subsystem limits which files on the Jenkins controller can be accessed by agent processes.\n\nMultiple vulnerabilities in the file path filtering implementation of Jenkins 2.318 and earlier, LTS 2.303.2 and earlier allow agent processes to read and write arbitrary files on the Jenkins controller file system, and obtain some information about Jenkins controller file systems.\n\nSECURITY-2531 / CVE-2021-21691: Creating symbolic links is possible without the `symlink` permission.\n\nWe expect that most of these vulnerabilities have been present since [SECURITY-144 was addressed in the 2014-10-30 security advisory](https://www.jenkins.io/security/advisory/2014-10-30/).\n\nJenkins 2.319, LTS 2.303.3 addresses these security vulnerabilities.\n\nSECURITY-2531 / CVE-2021-21691: Creating symbolic links now correctly checks the `symlink` permission.\n\nAs some common operations are now newly subject to access control, it is expected that plugins sending commands from agents to the controller may start failing. Additionally, the newly introduced path canonicalization means that instances using a custom builds directory ([Java system property jenkins.model.Jenkins.buildsDir](https://www.jenkins.io/doc/book/managing/system-properties/#jenkins-model-jenkins-buildsdir)) or partitioning `JENKINS_HOME` using symbolic links may fail access control checks. See [the documentation](https://www.jenkins.io/doc/book/security/controller-isolation/agent-to-controller/#file-access-rules) for how to customize the configuration in case of problems.\n\nIf you are unable to immediately upgrade to Jenkins 2.319, LTS 2.303.3, you can install the [Remoting Security Workaround Plugin](https://www.jenkins.io/redirect/remoting-security-workaround/). It will prevent all agent-to-controller file access using `FilePath` APIs. Because it is more restrictive than Jenkins 2.319, LTS 2.303.3, more plugins are incompatible with it. Make sure to read the plugin documentation before installing it.",
  "id": "GHSA-2c79-h2h5-g3fw",
  "modified": "2022-12-16T20:33:58Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T19:19:44Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-21691"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/commit/63cde2daadc705edf086f2213b48c8c547f98358"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.jenkins.io/security/advisory/2021-11-04/#SECURITY-2455"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Multiple vulnerabilities allow bypassing path filtering of agent-to-controller access control in Jenkins"
}

GHSA-2C7F-7V62-C4P8

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-12-10 00:00 – Updated: 2022-07-13 00:01
VLAI
Details

An improper authorization vulnerabiltiy [CWE-285] in FortiClient Windows versions 7.0.0 and 6.4.6 and below and 6.2.8 and below may allow an unauthenticated attacker to bypass the webfilter control via modifying the session-id paramater.

Severity
5.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-36167"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-12-09T10:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "An improper authorization vulnerabiltiy [CWE-285] in FortiClient Windows versions 7.0.0 and 6.4.6 and below and 6.2.8 and below may allow an unauthenticated attacker to bypass the webfilter control via modifying the session-id paramater.",
  "id": "GHSA-2c7f-7v62-c4p8",
  "modified": "2022-07-13T00:01:29Z",
  "published": "2021-12-10T00:00:47Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-36167"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://fortiguard.com/advisory/FG-IR-20-127"
    }
  ],
  "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-2C7Q-MC2R-GX7M

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:05 – Updated: 2022-07-13 00:01
VLAI
Details

An issue was discovered in Cleo LexiCom 5.5.0.0. The requirement for the sender of an AS2 message to identify themselves (via encryption and signing of the message) can be bypassed by changing the Content-Type of the message to text/plain.

Severity
5.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-33577"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-06-18T11:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "An issue was discovered in Cleo LexiCom 5.5.0.0. The requirement for the sender of an AS2 message to identify themselves (via encryption and signing of the message) can be bypassed by changing the Content-Type of the message to text/plain.",
  "id": "GHSA-2c7q-mc2r-gx7m",
  "modified": "2022-07-13T00:01:25Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T19:05:39Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-33577"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/atredispartners/advisories/blob/master/ATREDIS-2020-0011.md"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.cleo.com/cleo-lexicom"
    }
  ],
  "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-2C99-9FV7-72HJ

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:38 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:38
VLAI
Details

Nextcloud Server before 11.0.3 is vulnerable to disclosure of valid share tokens for public calendars due to a logical error. Thus granting an attacker potentially access to publicly shared calendars without knowing the share token.

Severity
4.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2017-0894"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-200",
      "CWE-285",
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2017-05-08T20:29:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Nextcloud Server before 11.0.3 is vulnerable to disclosure of valid share tokens for public calendars due to a logical error. Thus granting an attacker potentially access to publicly shared calendars without knowing the share token.",
  "id": "GHSA-2c99-9fv7-72hj",
  "modified": "2022-05-13T01:38:26Z",
  "published": "2022-05-13T01:38:26Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-0894"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/218876"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://nextcloud.com/security/advisory/?id=nc-sa-2017-011"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-2CC9-295V-25M8

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:37 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:37
VLAI
Details

The Webform Report project 7.x-1.x-dev for Drupal allows remote attackers to view submissions by visiting the /rss.xml page. NOTE: This project is not covered by Drupal's security advisory policy.

Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2019-25012"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-01-01T01:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "The Webform Report project 7.x-1.x-dev for Drupal allows remote attackers to view submissions by visiting the /rss.xml page. NOTE: This project is not covered by Drupal\u0027s security advisory policy.",
  "id": "GHSA-2cc9-295v-25m8",
  "modified": "2022-05-24T17:37:34Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T17:37:34Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-25012"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.drupal.org/project/webform_report/issues/3101410"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}

GHSA-2CF2-4MQR-V9RJ

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-25 06:30 – Updated: 2025-04-25 06:30
VLAI
Details

The Prevent Direct Access – Protect WordPress Files plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized access and modification of data| due to a misconfigured capability check on the 'pda_lite_custom_permission_check' function in versions 2.8.6 to 2.8.8.2. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to access and change the protection status of media.

Severity
5.4 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-3861"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-04-25T06:15:45Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "The Prevent Direct Access \u2013 Protect WordPress Files plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized access and modification of data| due to a misconfigured capability check on the \u0027pda_lite_custom_permission_check\u0027 function in versions 2.8.6 to 2.8.8.2. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to access and change the protection status of media.",
  "id": "GHSA-2cf2-4mqr-v9rj",
  "modified": "2025-04-25T06:30:56Z",
  "published": "2025-04-25T06:30:56Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-3861"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/prevent-direct-access/tags/2.8.8.2/includes/pda_lite_api.php#L71"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3279923"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/2ed83916-3cf7-4fc6-a16f-45b40cedc721?source=cve"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-2CF7-HPWF-47H9

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-14 20:26 – Updated: 2026-07-14 20:26
VLAI
Summary
n8n-MCP: Incorrect authorization can expose default-scope workflow version backups in multi-tenant HTTP mode
Details

Summary

In multi-tenant HTTP mode (ENABLE_MULTI_TENANT=true), an authenticated tenant could, under certain conditions, reach n8n-mcp's local default-scope workflow_versions backups instead of being confined to its own tenant scope. This affects n8n-mcp's own local workflow-version storage, not a normal n8n API capability.

Impact

An authenticated MCP HTTP tenant could read or delete workflow-version backups stored in the default (single-tenant) scope — for example backups left from a prior single-tenant deployment or a migration period. Workflow snapshots may contain sensitive workflow configuration depending on their contents. Single-tenant and stdio deployments are not affected.

Affected versions

<= 2.57.3

Patched version

2.57.4

Remediation

Upgrade to n8n-mcp 2.57.4 or later. The fix requires a complete tenant context in multi-tenant mode and fails closed for workflow-version access that cannot be attributed to a specific tenant.

Workarounds

  • Restrict network access to the HTTP endpoint (firewall / reverse proxy / VPN) so only trusted callers can reach it.
  • Run in stdio mode, which has no multi-tenant HTTP surface.
  • If default-scope backups from a prior single-tenant deployment are not needed, removing them eliminates the exposure.

Credit

Reported by @DavidCarliez.

Severity
4.2 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.57.3"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "n8n-mcp"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.57.4"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-55608"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-200",
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-14T20:26:39Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "## Summary\n\nIn multi-tenant HTTP mode (`ENABLE_MULTI_TENANT=true`), an authenticated tenant could, under certain conditions, reach n8n-mcp\u0027s local default-scope `workflow_versions` backups instead of being confined to its own tenant scope. This affects n8n-mcp\u0027s own local workflow-version storage, not a normal n8n API capability.\n\n## Impact\n\nAn authenticated MCP HTTP tenant could read or delete workflow-version backups stored in the default (single-tenant) scope \u2014 for example backups left from a prior single-tenant deployment or a migration period. Workflow snapshots may contain sensitive workflow configuration depending on their contents. Single-tenant and stdio deployments are not affected.\n\n## Affected versions\n\n`\u003c= 2.57.3`\n\n## Patched version\n\n`2.57.4`\n\n## Remediation\n\nUpgrade to n8n-mcp `2.57.4` or later. The fix requires a complete tenant context in multi-tenant mode and fails closed for workflow-version access that cannot be attributed to a specific tenant.\n\n## Workarounds\n\n- Restrict network access to the HTTP endpoint (firewall / reverse proxy / VPN) so only trusted callers can reach it.\n- Run in stdio mode, which has no multi-tenant HTTP surface.\n- If default-scope backups from a prior single-tenant deployment are not needed, removing them eliminates the exposure.\n\n## Credit\n\nReported by @DavidCarliez.",
  "id": "GHSA-2cf7-hpwf-47h9",
  "modified": "2026-07-14T20:26:39Z",
  "published": "2026-07-14T20:26:39Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/czlonkowski/n8n-mcp/security/advisories/GHSA-2cf7-hpwf-47h9"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/czlonkowski/n8n-mcp/commit/c1ca1e73697feaec5ec2a5fb7e6992a2892b62c9"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/czlonkowski/n8n-mcp"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/czlonkowski/n8n-mcp/releases/tag/v2.57.4"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "n8n-MCP: Incorrect authorization can expose default-scope workflow version backups in multi-tenant HTTP mode"
}

GHSA-2CG5-9VJW-W6VG

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-06 15:34 – Updated: 2025-03-06 15:34
VLAI
Details

Improper authorization in GitLab EE affecting all versions from 17.7 prior to 17.7.6, 17.8 prior to 17.8.4, 17.9 prior to 17.9.1 allow users with limited permissions to access to potentially sensitive project analytics data.

Severity
4.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-2045"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-03-06T13:15:12Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Improper authorization in GitLab EE affecting all versions from 17.7 prior to 17.7.6, 17.8 prior to 17.8.4, 17.9 prior to 17.9.1  allow users with limited permissions to access to potentially sensitive project analytics data.",
  "id": "GHSA-2cg5-9vjw-w6vg",
  "modified": "2025-03-06T15:34:46Z",
  "published": "2025-03-06T15:34:46Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-2045"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/2921111"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/512050"
    }
  ],
  "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-2CPH-RVMJ-CX7R

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:01 – Updated: 2022-06-04 00:00
VLAI
Details

MapServer before 7.0.8, 7.1.x and 7.2.x before 7.2.3, 7.3.x and 7.4.x before 7.4.5, and 7.5.x and 7.6.x before 7.6.3 does not properly enforce the MS_MAP_NO_PATH and MS_MAP_PATTERN restrictions that are intended to control the locations from which a mapfile may be loaded (with MapServer CGI).

Severity
5.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-32062"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-05-06T13:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "MapServer before 7.0.8, 7.1.x and 7.2.x before 7.2.3, 7.3.x and 7.4.x before 7.4.5, and 7.5.x and 7.6.x before 7.6.3 does not properly enforce the MS_MAP_NO_PATH and MS_MAP_PATTERN restrictions that are intended to control the locations from which a mapfile may be loaded (with MapServer CGI).",
  "id": "GHSA-2cph-rvmj-cx7r",
  "modified": "2022-06-04T00:00:41Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T19:01:30Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-32062"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/FNORAZCJ7AIPJFUY6WGLYIA3QVPWFXFY"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/NYVWUC4EOW5WZAZGPLRTZS5QXNUEBPQ5"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://mapserver.org/development/changelog/changelog-7-0.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://mapserver.org/development/changelog/changelog-7-2.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://mapserver.org/development/changelog/changelog-7-4.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://mapserver.org/development/changelog/changelog-7-6.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:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}
Mitigation
Architecture and Design
  • 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
Architecture and Design

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
Architecture and Design

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
Architecture and Design
  • 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
System Configuration Installation

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.

← Back to the CWE list