Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-269

Discouraged

Improper Privilege Management

Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft

API response cwe.mitre.org

The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.

5655 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.

GHSA-H3WW-Q6XX-W7X3

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-14 20:28 – Updated: 2026-07-15 21:50
VLAI
Summary
Open WebUI: LDAP and OAuth First-User Race Condition Allows Multiple Admin Accounts
Details

Summary

The LDAP and OAuth authentication flows use a TOCTOU (Time-of-Check-Time-of-Use) pattern for first-user admin role assignment. The regular signup handler (signup_handler in auths.py, line 663) was explicitly patched to prevent this race with the comment "Insert with default role first to avoid TOCTOU race", but the LDAP and OAuth code paths were never updated with the same fix.

Vulnerable Code

LDAP (auths.py, lines 479-490)

# Line 482 - CHECK: is the user table empty?
role = 'admin' if not Users.has_users(db=db) else request.app.state.config.DEFAULT_USER_ROLE

# Lines 484-490 - USE: create user with the role determined above
user = Auths.insert_new_auth(
    email=email,
    password=str(uuid.uuid4()),
    name=cn,
    role=role,   # <-- role was determined BEFORE insert, race window exists
    db=db,
)

OAuth (oauth.py, lines 1103-1112, 1566-1574)

# Line 1104 - CHECK: count users
def get_user_role(self, user, user_data):
    user_count = Users.get_num_users()
    if not user and user_count == 0:
        return 'admin'    # Line 1112

# Lines 1566-1574 - USE: create user with pre-determined role
user = Auths.insert_new_auth(
    ...
    role=self.get_user_role(None, user_data),  # Line 1571
    ...
)

Both paths determine the role BEFORE inserting the user, creating a race window where multiple concurrent requests on a fresh instance can all observe an empty database and all receive the admin role.

Comparison with Patched Signup

The signup_handler (auths.py, line 663) was explicitly fixed:

# Insert with default role first to avoid TOCTOU race
user = Auths.insert_new_auth(..., role=DEFAULT_USER_ROLE, ...)
# Then check if this is the only user and upgrade
if Users.get_num_users() == 1:
    Users.update_user_role_by_id(user.id, 'admin')

The LDAP and OAuth paths did NOT receive this fix.

Exploitation

  1. Deploy Open WebUI with LDAP or OAuth enabled on a fresh instance (no existing users)
  2. Send multiple concurrent authentication requests from different users
  3. Multiple requests pass the has_users() / get_num_users() == 0 check simultaneously
  4. All concurrent users become administrators

DATABASE_ENABLE_SESSION_SHARING defaults to False (env.py:387), so each call uses its own database session, widening the race window.

Impact

Any LDAP/OAuth user who times their first login concurrently with the legitimate first admin can escalate to full admin privileges, gaining access to all user data, system configuration, API keys, and connected LLM backends.

Suggested Fix

Apply the same insert-then-check pattern used in signup_handler: insert the user with DEFAULT_USER_ROLE first, then atomically check if this is the only user and upgrade to admin only if so.

Resolution

Fixed in PR #23626 (commit 96a0b3239), first released in v0.9.0 (Apr 2026). Both LDAP (routers/auths.py) and OAuth (utils/oauth.py) registration paths now use the same insert-first-check-after pattern that signup_handler already had:

  1. Insert the new user with DEFAULT_USER_ROLE unconditionally — no pre-insert role decision based on user count.
  2. After the insert commits, atomically call Users.get_num_users() == 1 to check whether this is the sole user.
  3. Only the sole user gets promoted to admin via Users.update_user_role_by_id.

OAuthManager.get_user_role was also updated to return DEFAULT_USER_ROLE (not admin) for first-user bootstrap; admin promotion is deferred to the post-insert check above. With this ordering, two concurrent first-user registrations that both observe an empty table can both insert, but only one will see get_num_users() == 1 afterward — the other will see == 2 and not be promoted.

Users on >= 0.9.0 are not affected.

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

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.8.12"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "open-webui"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.9.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-45675"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-269",
      "CWE-362"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-14T20:28:46Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-05-15T20:16:49Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "## Summary\n\nThe LDAP and OAuth authentication flows use a TOCTOU (Time-of-Check-Time-of-Use) pattern for first-user admin role assignment. The regular signup handler (`signup_handler` in auths.py, line 663) was explicitly patched to prevent this race with the comment *\"Insert with default role first to avoid TOCTOU race\"*, but the LDAP and OAuth code paths were never updated with the same fix.\n\n## Vulnerable Code\n\n### LDAP (auths.py, lines 479-490)\n```python\n# Line 482 - CHECK: is the user table empty?\nrole = \u0027admin\u0027 if not Users.has_users(db=db) else request.app.state.config.DEFAULT_USER_ROLE\n\n# Lines 484-490 - USE: create user with the role determined above\nuser = Auths.insert_new_auth(\n    email=email,\n    password=str(uuid.uuid4()),\n    name=cn,\n    role=role,   # \u003c-- role was determined BEFORE insert, race window exists\n    db=db,\n)\n```\n\n### OAuth (oauth.py, lines 1103-1112, 1566-1574)\n```python\n# Line 1104 - CHECK: count users\ndef get_user_role(self, user, user_data):\n    user_count = Users.get_num_users()\n    if not user and user_count == 0:\n        return \u0027admin\u0027    # Line 1112\n\n# Lines 1566-1574 - USE: create user with pre-determined role\nuser = Auths.insert_new_auth(\n    ...\n    role=self.get_user_role(None, user_data),  # Line 1571\n    ...\n)\n```\n\nBoth paths determine the role BEFORE inserting the user, creating a race window where multiple concurrent requests on a fresh instance can all observe an empty database and all receive the `admin` role.\n\n## Comparison with Patched Signup\n\nThe `signup_handler` (auths.py, line 663) was explicitly fixed:\n```python\n# Insert with default role first to avoid TOCTOU race\nuser = Auths.insert_new_auth(..., role=DEFAULT_USER_ROLE, ...)\n# Then check if this is the only user and upgrade\nif Users.get_num_users() == 1:\n    Users.update_user_role_by_id(user.id, \u0027admin\u0027)\n```\n\nThe LDAP and OAuth paths did NOT receive this fix.\n\n## Exploitation\n\n1. Deploy Open WebUI with LDAP or OAuth enabled on a fresh instance (no existing users)\n2. Send multiple concurrent authentication requests from different users\n3. Multiple requests pass the `has_users()` / `get_num_users() == 0` check simultaneously\n4. All concurrent users become administrators\n\n`DATABASE_ENABLE_SESSION_SHARING` defaults to `False` (env.py:387), so each call uses its own database session, widening the race window.\n\n## Impact\n\nAny LDAP/OAuth user who times their first login concurrently with the legitimate first admin can escalate to full admin privileges, gaining access to all user data, system configuration, API keys, and connected LLM backends.\n\n## Suggested Fix\n\nApply the same insert-then-check pattern used in `signup_handler`: insert the user with `DEFAULT_USER_ROLE` first, then atomically check if this is the only user and upgrade to admin only if so.\n\n## Resolution\n\nFixed in PR [#23626](https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/pull/23626) (commit [96a0b3239](https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/commit/96a0b3239b1aadb23fc359bf10849c9ba12fd6ec)), first released in **v0.9.0** (Apr 2026). Both LDAP (`routers/auths.py`) and OAuth (`utils/oauth.py`) registration paths now use the same insert-first-check-after pattern that `signup_handler` already had:\n\n1. Insert the new user with `DEFAULT_USER_ROLE` unconditionally \u2014 no pre-insert role decision based on user count.\n2. After the insert commits, atomically call `Users.get_num_users() == 1` to check whether this is the sole user.\n3. Only the sole user gets promoted to `admin` via `Users.update_user_role_by_id`.\n\n`OAuthManager.get_user_role` was also updated to return `DEFAULT_USER_ROLE` (not `admin`) for first-user bootstrap; admin promotion is deferred to the post-insert check above. With this ordering, two concurrent first-user registrations that both observe an empty table can both insert, but only one will see `get_num_users() == 1` afterward \u2014 the other will see `== 2` and not be promoted.\n\nUsers on `\u003e= 0.9.0` are not affected.",
  "id": "GHSA-h3ww-q6xx-w7x3",
  "modified": "2026-07-15T21:50:58Z",
  "published": "2026-05-14T20:28:46Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/security/advisories/GHSA-h3ww-q6xx-w7x3"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-45675"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/pull/23626"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/commit/96a0b3239b1aadb23fc359bf10849c9ba12fd6ec"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/releases/tag/v0.9.0"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/open-webui/PYSEC-2026-2730.yaml"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Open WebUI: LDAP and OAuth First-User Race Condition Allows Multiple Admin Accounts"
}

GHSA-H3XG-RPR6-5HM7

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-03 18:30 – Updated: 2025-12-03 18:30
VLAI
Details

A local privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Plugin Alliance InstallationHelper service included with Plugin Alliance Installation Manager v1.4.0 on macOS. Due to the absence of a hardened runtime and a __RESTRICT segment, a local user may exploit the DYLD_INSERT_LIBRARIES environment variable to inject a dynamic library, potentially resulting in code execution with elevated privileges.

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

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-62686"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-269"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-12-03T17:15:52Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "A local privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Plugin Alliance InstallationHelper service included with Plugin Alliance Installation Manager v1.4.0 on macOS. Due to the absence of a hardened runtime and a __RESTRICT segment, a local user may exploit the DYLD_INSERT_LIBRARIES environment variable to inject a dynamic library, potentially resulting in code execution with elevated privileges.",
  "id": "GHSA-h3xg-rpr6-5hm7",
  "modified": "2025-12-03T18:30:26Z",
  "published": "2025-12-03T18:30:26Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-62686"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://almightysec.com/plugin-alliance-installationhelper-dylib-injection"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-H43F-9GCW-QMPF

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:25 – Updated: 2024-01-04 03:30
VLAI
Details

An elevation of privilege vulnerability exists when the Windows Speech Runtime improperly handles memory.To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker would first have to gain execution on the victim system, aka 'Windows Speech Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability'. This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2020-1522.

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

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2020-1521"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-269"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2020-08-17T19:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "An elevation of privilege vulnerability exists when the Windows Speech Runtime improperly handles memory.To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker would first have to gain execution on the victim system, aka \u0027Windows Speech Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability\u0027. This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2020-1522.",
  "id": "GHSA-h43f-9gcw-qmpf",
  "modified": "2024-01-04T03:30:34Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T17:25:51Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-1521"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://portal.msrc.microsoft.com/en-US/security-guidance/advisory/CVE-2020-1521"
    }
  ],
  "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-H465-J378-365G

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-01-11 00:30 – Updated: 2023-01-11 00:30
VLAI
Details

Microsoft Cryptographic Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability. This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2023-21551, CVE-2023-21730.

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

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-21561"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-269"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2023-01-10T22:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Microsoft Cryptographic Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability. This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2023-21551, CVE-2023-21730.",
  "id": "GHSA-h465-j378-365g",
  "modified": "2023-01-11T00:30:47Z",
  "published": "2023-01-11T00:30:47Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-21561"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2023-21561"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://portal.msrc.microsoft.com/en-US/security-guidance/advisory/CVE-2023-21561"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-H495-HFPG-XW55

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-27 00:00 – Updated: 2022-06-09 00:00
VLAI
Details

A logic issue was addressed with improved state management. This issue is fixed in Security Update 2022-003 Catalina, macOS Monterey 12.3, macOS Big Sur 11.6.5. An application may be able to gain elevated privileges.

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

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-26691"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-269"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-05-26T18:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "A logic issue was addressed with improved state management. This issue is fixed in Security Update 2022-003 Catalina, macOS Monterey 12.3, macOS Big Sur 11.6.5. An application may be able to gain elevated privileges.",
  "id": "GHSA-h495-hfpg-xw55",
  "modified": "2022-06-09T00:00:29Z",
  "published": "2022-05-27T00:00:42Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-26691"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/OpenPrinting/cups/commit/de4f8c196106033e4c372dce3e91b9d42b0b9444"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/mandiant/Vulnerability-Disclosures/blob/master/2022/MNDT-2022-0026/MNDT-2022-0026.md"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2022/05/msg00039.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/KQ6TD7F3VRITPEHFDHZHK7MU6FEBMZ5U"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YQRIT4H75XV6M42K7ZTARWZ7YLLYQHPO"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213183"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213184"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213185"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.debian.org/security/2022/dsa-5149"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-H496-35PX-76WP

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-09-30 18:31 – Updated: 2024-10-01 00:33
VLAI
Details

An issue in the TP-Link MQTT Broker and API gateway of TP-Link Kasa KP125M v1.0.3 allows attackers to establish connections by impersonating devices owned by other users.

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

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-46549"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-269"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-09-30T17:15:04Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "An issue in the TP-Link MQTT Broker and API gateway of TP-Link Kasa KP125M v1.0.3 allows attackers to establish connections by impersonating devices owned by other users.",
  "id": "GHSA-h496-35px-76wp",
  "modified": "2024-10-01T00:33:40Z",
  "published": "2024-09-30T18:31:36Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-46549"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/Chapoly1305/tp-link-cve/blob/main/CVE-2024-46549.md"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-H4CC-27HC-FW7G

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

A logic issue was addressed with improved state management. This issue is fixed in Security Update 2021-002 Catalina, Security Update 2021-003 Mojave, iOS 14.5 and iPadOS 14.5, watchOS 7.4, tvOS 14.5, macOS Big Sur 11.3. A local attacker may be able to elevate their privileges.

Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-1868"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-269"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-09-08T15:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "A logic issue was addressed with improved state management. This issue is fixed in Security Update 2021-002 Catalina, Security Update 2021-003 Mojave, iOS 14.5 and iPadOS 14.5, watchOS 7.4, tvOS 14.5, macOS Big Sur 11.3. A local attacker may be able to elevate their privileges.",
  "id": "GHSA-h4cc-27hc-fw7g",
  "modified": "2022-05-24T19:13:32Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T19:13:32Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-1868"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212317"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212323"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212324"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212325"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212326"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212327"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}

GHSA-H4HQ-RGVH-WH27

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-04 20:13 – Updated: 2026-03-04 20:13
VLAI
Summary
Vaultwarden's Collection Management Operations Allowed Without `manage` Verification for Manager Role
Details

Summary

Testing confirmed that even when a Manager has manage=false for a given collection, they can still perform the following management operations as long as they have access to the collection:

  • PUT /api/organizations/<org_id>/collections/<col_id> succeeds (HTTP 200)
  • PUT /api/organizations/<org_id>/collections/<col_id>/users succeeds (HTTP 200)
  • DELETE /api/organizations/<org_id>/collections/<col_id> succeeds (HTTP 200)

Description

  • The Manager guard checks only whether the user can access the collection, not whether they have manage privileges. This check is directly applied to management endpoints. src/auth.rs:816 ```rust

if !Collection::can_access_collection(&headers.membership, &col_id, &conn).await { err_handler!("The current user isn't a manager for this collection") } ```

  • The can_access_collection function does not evaluate the manage flag. src/db/models/collection.rs:140

```rust

pub async fn can_access_collection(member: &Membership, col_id: &CollectionId, conn: &DbConn) -> bool { member.has_status(MembershipStatus::Confirmed) && (member.has_full_access() || CollectionUser::has_access_to_collection_by_user(col_id, &member.user_uuid, conn).await || ... ```

  • A separate management-permission check exists and includes manage validation, but it is not used during authorization for the affected endpoints. src/db/models/collection.rs:516

```rust

pub async fn is_manageable_by_user(&self, user_uuid: &UserId, conn: &DbConn) -> bool { let Some(member) = Membership::find_confirmed_by_user_and_org(user_uuid, &self.org_uuid, conn).await else { return false; }; if member.has_full_access() { return true; } ... ```

  • The actual update and deletion endpoints only accept ManagerHeaders and do not perform additional manage checks. src/api/core/organizations.rs:608
  async fn put_organization_collection_update(..., headers: ManagerHeaders, ...)

src/api/core/organizations.rs:890

  async fn put_collection_users(..., headers: ManagerHeaders, ...)

src/api/core/organizations.rs:747

rust async fn delete_organization_collection(..., headers: ManagerHeaders, ...)

Preconditions

  • The attacker is a Manager within the target organization.
  • The attacker has access to the target collection (assigned=true).
  • The attacker’s permission for that collection is manage=false.
  • A valid API access token has been obtained.

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Confirm that the attacker’s current permissions for the target collection include manage=false. image

  2. As a control test, verify that update operations fail for collections the attacker cannot access. image

  3. Confirm that update operations succeed for the target collection where manage=false. image

  4. Use PUT /collections/{col_id}/users to set manage=true, confirming that the attacker can escalate their own privileges. image

  5. Verify that deletion of the collection succeeds despite the Manager lacking management rights. image

Required Minimum Privileges

  • Organization Manager role (Owner/Admin privileges are not required)
  • Works even with access_all=false
  • Only access rights to the target collection are required (manage privilege is not required)

Attack Scenario

A restricted Manager (intended for read/use-only access) directly invokes the API to update collection settings, elevate their own privileges to manage=true, and even delete the collection.

This allows the user to bypass operational access restrictions and effectively gain administrator-equivalent control over the collection.

Potential Impact

  • Confidentiality: Expansion of access scope through unauthorized privilege escalation and configuration changes.
  • Integrity: Unauthorized modification of collection settings and assignments; potential disabling of access controls.
  • Availability: Deletion of collections may disrupt business operations.
Severity
8.3 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.35.3"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "crates.io",
        "name": "vaultwarden"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.35.4"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-27803"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-269",
      "CWE-285",
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-04T20:13:44Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "## Summary\n\nTesting confirmed that even when a Manager has `manage=false` for a given collection, they can still perform the following management operations as long as they have access to the collection:\n\n* `PUT /api/organizations/\u003corg_id\u003e/collections/\u003ccol_id\u003e` succeeds (HTTP 200)\n* `PUT /api/organizations/\u003corg_id\u003e/collections/\u003ccol_id\u003e/users` succeeds (HTTP 200)\n* `DELETE /api/organizations/\u003corg_id\u003e/collections/\u003ccol_id\u003e` succeeds (HTTP 200)\n\n\n\n## Description\n\n* The Manager guard checks only whether the user **can access the collection**, not whether they have `manage` privileges. This check is directly applied to management endpoints.\nsrc/auth.rs:816\n  ```rust\n\n  if !Collection::can_access_collection(\u0026headers.membership, \u0026col_id, \u0026conn).await {\n      err_handler!(\"The current user isn\u0027t a manager for this collection\")\n  }\n  ```\n\n* The `can_access_collection` function does **not** evaluate the `manage` flag.\n  src/db/models/collection.rs:140\n\n  ```rust\n\n  pub async fn can_access_collection(member: \u0026Membership, col_id: \u0026CollectionId, conn: \u0026DbConn) -\u003e bool {\n      member.has_status(MembershipStatus::Confirmed)\n          \u0026\u0026 (member.has_full_access()\n              || CollectionUser::has_access_to_collection_by_user(col_id, \u0026member.user_uuid, conn).await\n              || ...\n  ```\n\n* A separate management-permission check exists and includes `manage` validation, but it is **not used** during authorization for the affected endpoints.\n  src/db/models/collection.rs:516\n\n  ```rust\n\n  pub async fn is_manageable_by_user(\u0026self, user_uuid: \u0026UserId, conn: \u0026DbConn) -\u003e bool {\n      let Some(member) = Membership::find_confirmed_by_user_and_org(user_uuid, \u0026self.org_uuid, conn).await else {\n          return false;\n      };\n      if member.has_full_access() {\n          return true;\n      }\n      ...\n  ```\n\n* The actual update and deletion endpoints only accept `ManagerHeaders` and do not perform additional `manage` checks.\n  src/api/core/organizations.rs:608\n\n```rust\n  async fn put_organization_collection_update(..., headers: ManagerHeaders, ...)\n```\n\n  src/api/core/organizations.rs:890\n\n```rust\n  async fn put_collection_users(..., headers: ManagerHeaders, ...)\n```\n  \n\nsrc/api/core/organizations.rs:747\n\n```rust\n  async fn delete_organization_collection(..., headers: ManagerHeaders, ...)\n  ```\n\n\n\n## Preconditions\n\n* The attacker is a **Manager** within the target organization.\n* The attacker has access to the target collection (`assigned=true`).\n* The attacker\u2019s permission for that collection is `manage=false`.\n* A valid API access token has been obtained.\n\n\n\n## Steps to Reproduce\n\n1. Confirm that the attacker\u2019s current permissions for the target collection include `manage=false`.\n\u003cimg width=\"2015\" height=\"636\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/58ddc733-e37c-4766-a980-b1ea1918ceb4\" /\u003e\n\n2. As a control test, verify that update operations fail for collections the attacker cannot access.\n\u003cimg width=\"2021\" height=\"852\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d8699442-2dfc-4d73-8940-ec10f4a175f0\" /\u003e\n\n3. Confirm that update operations succeed for the target collection where `manage=false`.\n\u003cimg width=\"2013\" height=\"690\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/33d9845d-d18e-456c-a58c-e780911347a9\" /\u003e\n\n4. Use `PUT /collections/{col_id}/users` to set `manage=true`, confirming that the attacker can escalate their own privileges.\n\u003cimg width=\"2018\" height=\"488\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/da8c5246-cf2a-46c2-9a25-e99d907f852d\" /\u003e\n\n5. Verify that deletion of the collection succeeds despite the Manager lacking management rights.\n\u003cimg width=\"2018\" height=\"487\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a97c8fb2-4f97-4c2a-a90b-9d95dbde84fd\" /\u003e\n\n\n\n## Required Minimum Privileges\n\n* Organization Manager role (Owner/Admin privileges are not required)\n* Works even with `access_all=false`\n* Only access rights to the target collection are required (`manage` privilege is not required)\n\n\n\n## Attack Scenario\n\nA restricted Manager (intended for read/use-only access) directly invokes the API to update collection settings, elevate their own privileges to `manage=true`, and even delete the collection.\n\nThis allows the user to bypass operational access restrictions and effectively gain administrator-equivalent control over the collection.\n\n\n\n## Potential Impact\n\n* **Confidentiality:** Expansion of access scope through unauthorized privilege escalation and configuration changes.\n* **Integrity:** Unauthorized modification of collection settings and assignments; potential disabling of access controls.\n* **Availability:** Deletion of collections may disrupt business operations.",
  "id": "GHSA-h4hq-rgvh-wh27",
  "modified": "2026-03-04T20:13:44Z",
  "published": "2026-03-04T20:13:44Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden/security/advisories/GHSA-h4hq-rgvh-wh27"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden"
    }
  ],
  "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": "Vaultwarden\u0027s Collection Management Operations Allowed Without `manage` Verification for Manager Role"
}

GHSA-H4JC-QMGP-CJPV

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:17 – Updated: 2023-08-02 00:30
VLAI
Details

Windows Common Log File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2021-40443, CVE-2021-40467.

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

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-40466"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-269"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-10-13T01:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Windows Common Log File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2021-40443, CVE-2021-40467.",
  "id": "GHSA-h4jc-qmgp-cjpv",
  "modified": "2023-08-02T00:30:36Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T19:17:31Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-40466"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://portal.msrc.microsoft.com/en-US/security-guidance/advisory/CVE-2021-40466"
    }
  ],
  "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-H4M7-PG92-X2Q8

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-06-11 12:30 – Updated: 2025-06-11 15:30
VLAI
Details

A vulnerability in Mozilla VPN on macOS allows privilege escalation from a normal user to root. This bug only affects Mozilla VPN on macOS. Other operating systems are unaffected. This vulnerability affects Mozilla VPN 2.28.0 < (macOS).

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

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-5687"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-269"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-06-11T12:15:29Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "A vulnerability in Mozilla VPN on macOS allows privilege escalation from a normal user to root.\n*This bug only affects Mozilla VPN on macOS. Other operating systems are unaffected.* This vulnerability affects Mozilla VPN 2.28.0 \u003c (macOS).",
  "id": "GHSA-h4m7-pg92-x2q8",
  "modified": "2025-06-11T15:30:28Z",
  "published": "2025-06-11T12:30:36Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-5687"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1953736"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2025-48"
    }
  ],
  "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"
    }
  ]
}
Mitigation MIT-1
Architecture and Design Operation

Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.

Mitigation MIT-48
Architecture and Design

Strategy: Separation of Privilege

Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.

Mitigation MIT-49
Architecture and Design

Strategy: Separation of Privilege

Consider following the principle of separation of privilege. Require multiple conditions to be met before permitting access to a system resource.

CAPEC-122: Privilege Abuse

An adversary is able to exploit features of the target that should be reserved for privileged users or administrators but are exposed to use by lower or non-privileged accounts. Access to sensitive information and functionality must be controlled to ensure that only authorized users are able to access these resources.

CAPEC-233: Privilege Escalation

An adversary exploits a weakness enabling them to elevate their privilege and perform an action that they are not supposed to be authorized to perform.

CAPEC-58: Restful Privilege Elevation

An adversary identifies a Rest HTTP (Get, Put, Delete) style permission method allowing them to perform various malicious actions upon server data due to lack of access control mechanisms implemented within the application service accepting HTTP messages.

← Back to the CWE list