CWE-285
DiscouragedImproper Authorization
Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
2345 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-6MHR-52MV-6V6F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-10-18 17:12 – Updated: 2022-10-18 17:12Impact
@keystone-6/core@2.2.0 || 2.3.0 users who are using the multiselect field, and provided field-level access control - are vulnerable to their field-level access control not being used.
List-level access control is NOT affected.
Field-level access control for fields other than multiselect are NOT affected.
Example, you are vulnerable if you are using field-level access control on a multiselect like the following:
const yourList = list({
access: {
// this is list-level access control, this is NOT impacted
},
fields: {
yourFieldName: multiselect({
// this is field-level access control, for multiselect fields
// this is vulnerable
access: {
create: ({ session }) => session?.data.isAdmin,
update: ({ session }) => session?.data.isAdmin,
},
options: [
{ value: 'apples', label: 'Apples' },
{ value: 'oranges', label: 'Oranges' },
],
// ...
}),
// ...
},
// ...
});
Mitigation
Please upgrade to @keystone-6/core >= 2.3.1, where this vulnerability has been closed.
Workarounds
If for some reason you cannot upgrade your dependencies, you should stop using the multiselect field.
Credits
Thanks to Marek R for reporting and submitting the pull request to fix this problem.
If you have any questions around this security advisory, please don't hesitate to contact us at security@keystonejs.com, or open an issue on GitHub.
If you have a security flaw to report for any software in this repository, please see our SECURITY policy.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@keystone-6/core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.2.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.3.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-39322"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-10-18T17:12:46Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-10-25T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "#### Impact\n\n`@keystone-6/core@2.2.0 || 2.3.0` users who are using the `multiselect` field, and provided field-level access control - are vulnerable to their field-level access control not being used.\n\nList-level access control is **NOT** affected.\n\nField-level access control for fields other than `multiselect` are **NOT** affected.\n\nExample, **you are vulnerable if** you are using field-level access control on a `multiselect` like the following:\n```ts\nconst yourList = list({\n access: {\n // this is list-level access control, this is NOT impacted\n },\n fields: {\n yourFieldName: multiselect({\n // this is field-level access control, for multiselect fields\n // this is vulnerable\n access: {\n create: ({ session }) =\u003e session?.data.isAdmin,\n update: ({ session }) =\u003e session?.data.isAdmin,\n },\n options: [\n { value: \u0027apples\u0027, label: \u0027Apples\u0027 },\n { value: \u0027oranges\u0027, label: \u0027Oranges\u0027 },\n ],\n // ...\n }),\n // ...\n },\n // ...\n});\n```\n\n#### Mitigation\nPlease upgrade to `@keystone-6/core \u003e= 2.3.1`, where this vulnerability has been closed.\n\n#### Workarounds\nIf for some reason you cannot upgrade your dependencies, you should stop using the `multiselect` field.\n\n#### Credits\nThanks to [Marek R](https://github.com/marekryb) for reporting and submitting the pull request to fix this problem.\n\nIf you have any questions around this security advisory, please don\u0027t hesitate to contact us at [security@keystonejs.com](mailto:security@keystonejs.com), or [open an issue on GitHub](https://github.com/keystonejs/keystone/issues/new/choose).\n\nIf you have a security flaw to report for any software in this repository, please see our [SECURITY policy](https://github.com/keystonejs/keystone/blob/main/SECURITY.md).",
"id": "GHSA-6mhr-52mv-6v6f",
"modified": "2022-10-18T17:12:46Z",
"published": "2022-10-18T17:12:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/keystonejs/keystone/security/advisories/GHSA-6mhr-52mv-6v6f"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-39322"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/keystonejs/keystone/commit/65c6ee3deef23605fc72b80230908696a7a65e7c"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/keystonejs/keystone"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Field-level access-control bypass for multiselect field"
}
GHSA-6P54-FW2F-Q7GF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-11 20:26 – Updated: 2026-07-15 21:58Impact
On a DevGuard API instance with one or more public assets, any authenticated user — including users from a different organization with no membership or role in the affected org/project — can create, update, reapply, and delete VEX rules on those public assets. The same flaw affects the other vulnerability-triage write endpoints exposed under a public asset, including:
- VEX rule create / update / reapply / delete
- Dependency-vuln event creation (accept / reject / mitigate decisions), batch event creation, vuln sync, and mitigation
- License risk creation
- External reference writes
- Artifact creation and license refresh
The attacker needs a valid account on the instance, but no membership in the victim organization, project, or asset is required.
Security impact is primarily to integrity of the vulnerability picture of public assets: an attacker can mark CVEs as false-positive, silence vulnerabilities, attach misleading justifications, or delete legitimate triage rules — undermining the trustworthiness of every consumer of the affected asset's VEX/SBOM output. Because public assets are by definition consumed by third parties (downstream users, supply-chain consumers, the published vex.json/sbom.json), the blast radius extends to anyone relying on that data.
Private assets are not affected by this advisory: the public-read exemption that enables the bypass does not apply to them, and access remains correctly gated by organization/project membership. The private setting is only relevant in DevGuard itself — there is no impact given when you have an open-source project on e.g. GitLab/GitHub and a private DevGuard asset connected.
Patches
Version v1.4.2contains a patch. Users should upgrade to the patched release as soon as it is available.
Workarounds
If developers cannot upgrade their applications immediately:
- ** They should make affected assets non-public.** In the asset settings, switch visibility from public to private. This removes the public-read exemption in the access-control middleware and restores correct authorization on all write endpoints for that asset. Downstream consumers that previously relied on the public
vex.json/sbom.jsonendpoints will need to be granted explicit access or must receive an exported file version until the patched release is deployed.
Resources
Fixed commit: https://github.com/l3montree-dev/devguard/commit/1be88ec1309a5dc0566e35a23bdc4ea3ecd11417
Credit
DeevGuard thanks @philipflohr (awesome-it.de) for finding and responsibly reporting this vulnerability!
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/l3montree-dev/devguard"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.4.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-48089"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-11T20:26:18Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-19T20:16:16Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nOn a DevGuard API instance with one or more **public assets**, any authenticated user \u2014 including users from a different organization with no membership or role in the affected org/project \u2014 can create, update, reapply, and delete **VEX rules** on those public assets. The same flaw affects the other vulnerability-triage write endpoints exposed under a public asset, including:\n\n- VEX rule create / update / reapply / delete\n- Dependency-vuln event creation (accept / reject / mitigate decisions), batch event creation, vuln sync, and mitigation\n- License risk creation\n- External reference writes\n- Artifact creation and license refresh\n\nThe attacker needs a valid account on the instance, but no membership in the victim organization, project, or asset is required.\n\n**Security impact** is primarily to **integrity** of the vulnerability picture of public assets: an attacker can mark CVEs as false-positive, silence vulnerabilities, attach misleading justifications, or delete legitimate triage rules \u2014 undermining the trustworthiness of every consumer of the affected asset\u0027s VEX/SBOM output. Because public assets are by definition consumed by third parties (downstream users, supply-chain consumers, the published vex.json/sbom.json), the blast radius extends to anyone relying on that data.\n\nPrivate assets are **not affected** by this advisory: the public-read exemption that enables the bypass does not apply to them, and access remains correctly gated by organization/project membership. The private setting is only relevant in DevGuard itself \u2014 there is no impact given when you have an open-source project on e.g. GitLab/GitHub and a private DevGuard asset connected.\n\n### Patches\n\nVersion `v1.4.2`contains a patch. Users should upgrade to the patched release as soon as it is available.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nIf developers cannot upgrade their applications immediately:\n\n- ** They should make affected assets non-public.** In the asset settings, switch visibility from public to private. This removes the public-read exemption in the access-control middleware and restores correct authorization on all write endpoints for that asset. Downstream consumers that previously relied on the public `vex.json` / `sbom.json` endpoints will need to be granted explicit access or must receive an exported file version until the patched release is deployed.\n\n### Resources\nFixed commit: https://github.com/l3montree-dev/devguard/commit/1be88ec1309a5dc0566e35a23bdc4ea3ecd11417\n\n### Credit\n\nDeevGuard thanks @philipflohr ([awesome-it.de](https://awesome-it.de/)) for finding and responsibly reporting this vulnerability!",
"id": "GHSA-6p54-fw2f-q7gf",
"modified": "2026-07-15T21:58:25Z",
"published": "2026-06-11T20:26:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/l3montree-dev/devguard/security/advisories/GHSA-6p54-fw2f-q7gf"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-48089"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/l3montree-dev/devguard/commit/1be88ec1309a5dc0566e35a23bdc4ea3ecd11417"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/l3montree-dev/devguard"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:H/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "DevGuard has improper authorization on public assets"
}
GHSA-6Q5R-WX7G-RQ28
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:03 – Updated: 2022-11-27 00:30All Samba versions 4.x.x before 4.9.17, 4.10.x before 4.10.11 and 4.11.x before 4.11.3 have an issue, where the S4U (MS-SFU) Kerberos delegation model includes a feature allowing for a subset of clients to be opted out of constrained delegation in any way, either S4U2Self or regular Kerberos authentication, by forcing all tickets for these clients to be non-forwardable. In AD this is implemented by a user attribute delegation_not_allowed (aka not-delegated), which translates to disallow-forwardable. However the Samba AD DC does not do that for S4U2Self and does set the forwardable flag even if the impersonated client has the not-delegated flag set.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-14870"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-287"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-12-10T23:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "All Samba versions 4.x.x before 4.9.17, 4.10.x before 4.10.11 and 4.11.x before 4.11.3 have an issue, where the S4U (MS-SFU) Kerberos delegation model includes a feature allowing for a subset of clients to be opted out of constrained delegation in any way, either S4U2Self or regular Kerberos authentication, by forcing all tickets for these clients to be non-forwardable. In AD this is implemented by a user attribute delegation_not_allowed (aka not-delegated), which translates to disallow-forwardable. However the Samba AD DC does not do that for S4U2Self and does set the forwardable flag even if the impersonated client has the not-delegated flag set.",
"id": "GHSA-6q5r-wx7g-rq28",
"modified": "2022-11-27T00:30:50Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:03:14Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-14870"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2019-14870"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2021/05/msg00023.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2022/11/msg00034.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/PJH3ROOFYMOATD2UEPC47P5RPBDTY77E"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/WNKA4YIPV7AZR7KK3GW6L3HKGHSGJZFE"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202003-52"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202310-06"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20191210-0002"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20230216-0008"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://usn.ubuntu.com/4217-1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://usn.ubuntu.com/4217-2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.samba.org/samba/security/CVE-2019-14870.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.synology.com/security/advisory/Synology_SA_19_40"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-12/msg00038.html"
}
],
"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-6QX8-8Q59-X2RM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-25 06:30 – Updated: 2025-10-25 06:30The Tutor LMS Pro – eLearning and online course solution plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Insecure Direct Object Reference in all versions up to, and including, 3.8.3 due to missing validation on a user controlled key when viewing and editing assignments through the tutor_assignment_submit() function. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to view and edit assignment submissions of other students.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-6639"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-25T06:15:36Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Tutor LMS Pro \u2013 eLearning and online course solution plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Insecure Direct Object Reference in all versions up to, and including, 3.8.3 due to missing validation on a user controlled key when viewing and editing assignments through the tutor_assignment_submit() function. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to view and edit assignment submissions of other students.",
"id": "GHSA-6qx8-8q59-x2rm",
"modified": "2025-10-25T06:30:15Z",
"published": "2025-10-25T06:30:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-6639"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wordpress.org/plugins/tutor/#developers"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/8dc16ba4-3c2e-43e2-82a0-b742276b9640?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-6R4R-M3H4-XRHW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-06 21:15 – Updated: 2026-04-08 18:32The Getwid – Gutenberg Blocks plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to an insufficient capability check on the get_remote_templates function in versions up to, and including, 1.8.3. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers with subscriber-level permissions or above to flush the remote template cache. Cached template information can also be accessed via this endpoint but these are not considered sensitive as they are publicly accessible from the developer's site.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-1910"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-06-09T06:15:59Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Getwid \u2013 Gutenberg Blocks plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to an insufficient capability check on the get_remote_templates function in versions up to, and including, 1.8.3. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers with subscriber-level permissions or above to flush the remote template cache. Cached template information can also be accessed via this endpoint but these are not considered sensitive as they are publicly accessible from the developer\u0027s site.",
"id": "GHSA-6r4r-m3h4-xrhw",
"modified": "2026-04-08T18:32:10Z",
"published": "2023-07-06T21:15:07Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-1910"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/getwid/tags/1.8.3/includes/rest-api.php"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2023/06/credential-stealing-server-side-request-forgery-patched-in-getwid"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/6cd64ab0-007b-4778-9d92-06e530638fad?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-6R88-8V7Q-Q4P2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-13 15:32 – Updated: 2026-05-15 23:45Summary
POST /api/tag/getTag is registered with model.CheckAuth only, omitting both model.CheckAdminRole and model.CheckReadonly, despite the handler performing a configuration write that is normally guarded by both. Any authenticated user — including publish-service RoleReader accounts and RoleEditor accounts on a read-only workspace — can call this endpoint with a sort argument to mutate model.Conf.Tag.Sort and trigger model.Conf.Save(), which atomically rewrites the entire workspace conf.json.
Same root-cause class as the patched GHSA-4j3x-hhg2-fm2x (which fixed missing CheckAdminRole + CheckReadonly on /api/template/renderSprig).
Details
Affected files / lines (v3.6.5):
kernel/api/router.go:170 — only CheckAuth:
ginServer.Handle("POST", "/api/tag/getTag", model.CheckAuth, getTag)
// Compare the sibling registrations on the next two lines, which DO gate writes:
ginServer.Handle("POST", "/api/tag/renameTag", model.CheckAuth, model.CheckAdminRole, model.CheckReadonly, renameTag)
ginServer.Handle("POST", "/api/tag/removeTag", model.CheckAuth, model.CheckAdminRole, model.CheckReadonly, removeTag)
kernel/api/tag.go:28-64 — handler. The if nil != arg["sort"] block writes config without any role check:
func getTag(c *gin.Context) {
ret := gulu.Ret.NewResult()
defer c.JSON(http.StatusOK, ret)
arg, ok := util.JsonArg(c, ret)
if !ok { return }
...
if nil != arg["sort"] { // ← unauthorized write path
sortVal, ok := util.ParseJsonArg[float64]("sort", arg, ret, true, false)
if !ok { return }
model.Conf.Tag.Sort = int(sortVal)
model.Conf.Save() // persists entire conf to <workspace>/conf/conf.json
}
...
}
Conf.Save() rewrites the entire configuration file, which means a malicious caller racing with a legitimate config change can roll back another user's setting (TOCTOU on the global config object).
PoC
Same Docker setup as Advisory 1.
# 1. Authenticate (any role with CheckAuth pass — admin used here for convenience).
curl -s -c /tmp/sy.cookie -X POST http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/system/loginAuth \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' -d '{"authCode":"audittest"}' >/dev/null
# 2. Read current Conf.Tag.Sort.
curl -s -b /tmp/sy.cookie -X POST http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/system/getConf \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' -d '{}' \
| python3 -c "import json,sys;print('Conf.Tag.Sort BEFORE =',json.load(sys.stdin)['data']['conf']['tag']['sort'])"
# → Conf.Tag.Sort BEFORE = 4
# 3. Mutate via the read-style endpoint.
curl -s -b /tmp/sy.cookie -X POST http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/tag/getTag \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' -d '{"sort": 7}'
# → {"code":0,"msg":"","data":[]}
# 4. Confirm in-memory.
curl -s -b /tmp/sy.cookie -X POST http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/system/getConf \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' -d '{}' \
| python3 -c "import json,sys;print('Conf.Tag.Sort AFTER =',json.load(sys.stdin)['data']['conf']['tag']['sort'])"
# → Conf.Tag.Sort AFTER = 7
# 5. Confirm persisted to disk inside the container.
docker exec siyuan-audit grep -o 'sort":[0-9]*' /siyuan/workspace/conf/conf.json
# → sort":7
The vulnerability is exposed to publish-mode RoleReader (default for any anonymous publish visitor) and to RoleEditor users on workspaces where the administrator has set Editor.ReadOnly = true.
Impact
Limited direct damage — the writable field is only the tag display sort order. The pattern is concerning because:
- It demonstrates the same gap that
GHSA-4j3x-hhg2-fm2xwas meant to flag broadly (missingCheckAdminRole + CheckReadonlyon a read-style endpoint that performs writes); each occurrence has to be patched individually. Conf.Save()rewrites the whole file, so a write-race during a legitimate configuration change can overwrite unrelated user-set values.- A publish-service Reader being able to mutate any server state at all violates the intended trust boundary.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.0.0-20260512140701-d7b77d945e0d"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-45147"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-13T15:32:35Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-14T19:16:38Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\n`POST /api/tag/getTag` is registered with `model.CheckAuth` only, omitting both `model.CheckAdminRole` and `model.CheckReadonly`, despite the handler performing a configuration write that is normally guarded by both. Any authenticated user \u2014 including publish-service `RoleReader` accounts and `RoleEditor` accounts on a read-only workspace \u2014 can call this endpoint with a `sort` argument to mutate `model.Conf.Tag.Sort` and trigger `model.Conf.Save()`, which atomically rewrites the entire workspace `conf.json`.\n\nSame root-cause class as the patched `GHSA-4j3x-hhg2-fm2x` (which fixed missing `CheckAdminRole + CheckReadonly` on `/api/template/renderSprig`).\n\n### Details\n\n**Affected files / lines (v3.6.5):**\n\n`kernel/api/router.go:170` \u2014 only `CheckAuth`:\n\n```go\nginServer.Handle(\"POST\", \"/api/tag/getTag\", model.CheckAuth, getTag)\n// Compare the sibling registrations on the next two lines, which DO gate writes:\nginServer.Handle(\"POST\", \"/api/tag/renameTag\", model.CheckAuth, model.CheckAdminRole, model.CheckReadonly, renameTag)\nginServer.Handle(\"POST\", \"/api/tag/removeTag\", model.CheckAuth, model.CheckAdminRole, model.CheckReadonly, removeTag)\n```\n\n`kernel/api/tag.go:28-64` \u2014 handler. The `if nil != arg[\"sort\"]` block writes config without any role check:\n\n```go\nfunc getTag(c *gin.Context) {\n ret := gulu.Ret.NewResult()\n defer c.JSON(http.StatusOK, ret)\n arg, ok := util.JsonArg(c, ret)\n if !ok { return }\n ...\n if nil != arg[\"sort\"] { // \u2190 unauthorized write path\n sortVal, ok := util.ParseJsonArg[float64](\"sort\", arg, ret, true, false)\n if !ok { return }\n model.Conf.Tag.Sort = int(sortVal)\n model.Conf.Save() // persists entire conf to \u003cworkspace\u003e/conf/conf.json\n }\n ...\n}\n```\n\n`Conf.Save()` rewrites the **entire** configuration file, which means a malicious caller racing with a legitimate config change can roll back another user\u0027s setting (TOCTOU on the global config object).\n\n### PoC\n\nSame Docker setup as Advisory 1.\n\n```bash\n# 1. Authenticate (any role with CheckAuth pass \u2014 admin used here for convenience).\ncurl -s -c /tmp/sy.cookie -X POST http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/system/loginAuth \\\n -H \u0027Content-Type: application/json\u0027 -d \u0027{\"authCode\":\"audittest\"}\u0027 \u003e/dev/null\n\n# 2. Read current Conf.Tag.Sort.\ncurl -s -b /tmp/sy.cookie -X POST http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/system/getConf \\\n -H \u0027Content-Type: application/json\u0027 -d \u0027{}\u0027 \\\n | python3 -c \"import json,sys;print(\u0027Conf.Tag.Sort BEFORE =\u0027,json.load(sys.stdin)[\u0027data\u0027][\u0027conf\u0027][\u0027tag\u0027][\u0027sort\u0027])\"\n# \u2192 Conf.Tag.Sort BEFORE = 4\n\n# 3. Mutate via the read-style endpoint.\ncurl -s -b /tmp/sy.cookie -X POST http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/tag/getTag \\\n -H \u0027Content-Type: application/json\u0027 -d \u0027{\"sort\": 7}\u0027\n# \u2192 {\"code\":0,\"msg\":\"\",\"data\":[]}\n\n# 4. Confirm in-memory.\ncurl -s -b /tmp/sy.cookie -X POST http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/system/getConf \\\n -H \u0027Content-Type: application/json\u0027 -d \u0027{}\u0027 \\\n | python3 -c \"import json,sys;print(\u0027Conf.Tag.Sort AFTER =\u0027,json.load(sys.stdin)[\u0027data\u0027][\u0027conf\u0027][\u0027tag\u0027][\u0027sort\u0027])\"\n# \u2192 Conf.Tag.Sort AFTER = 7\n\n# 5. Confirm persisted to disk inside the container.\ndocker exec siyuan-audit grep -o \u0027sort\":[0-9]*\u0027 /siyuan/workspace/conf/conf.json\n# \u2192 sort\":7\n```\n\nThe vulnerability is exposed to publish-mode `RoleReader` (default for any anonymous publish visitor) and to `RoleEditor` users on workspaces where the administrator has set `Editor.ReadOnly = true`.\n\n### Impact\n\nLimited direct damage \u2014 the writable field is only the tag display sort order. The pattern is concerning because:\n\n- It demonstrates the same gap that `GHSA-4j3x-hhg2-fm2x` was meant to flag broadly (missing `CheckAdminRole + CheckReadonly` on a read-style endpoint that performs writes); each occurrence has to be patched individually.\n- `Conf.Save()` rewrites the whole file, so a write-race during a legitimate configuration change can overwrite unrelated user-set values.\n- A publish-service Reader being able to mutate any server state at all violates the intended trust boundary.",
"id": "GHSA-6r88-8v7q-q4p2",
"modified": "2026-05-15T23:45:15Z",
"published": "2026-05-13T15:32:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/security/advisories/GHSA-6r88-8v7q-q4p2"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-45147"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "SiYuan: Broken access control in `/api/tag/getTag` \u2014 Reader role can mutate `Conf.Tag.Sort` and persist to disk"
}
GHSA-6R92-968H-M757
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-12-11 18:30 – Updated: 2023-12-11 18:30SMU versions prior to 14.8.7825.01 are susceptible to unintended information disclosure, through URL manipulation. Authenticated users in Storage, Server or combined Server+Storage administrative roles are able to access SMU configuration backup, that would normally be barred to those specific administrative roles.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-6538"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-12-11T18:15:30Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "SMU versions prior to 14.8.7825.01 are susceptible to unintended information disclosure, through URL manipulation. Authenticated users in Storage, Server or combined Server+Storage administrative roles are able to access SMU configuration backup, that would normally be barred to those specific administrative roles. ",
"id": "GHSA-6r92-968h-m757",
"modified": "2023-12-11T18:30:32Z",
"published": "2023-12-11T18:30:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-6538"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://knowledge.hitachivantara.com/Security/System_Management_Unit_(SMU)_versions_prior_to_14.8.7825.01%2C_used_to_manage_Hitachi_Vantara_NAS_products_is_susceptible_to_unintended_information_disclosure_via_unprivileged_access_to_SMU_configuration_backup_data"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://knowledge.hitachivantara.com/Security/System_Management_Unit_(SMU)_versions_prior_to_14.8.7825.01%2C_used_to_manage_Hitachi_Vantara_NAS_products_is_susceptible_to_unintended_information_disclosure_via_unprivileged_access_to_SMU_configuration_backup_data."
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-6RH3-V235-FWM4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-29 09:30 – Updated: 2026-06-29 09:30A security flaw has been discovered in CodeAstro Complaint Management System 1.0. The affected element is the function deletereport of the file application/controllers/Report.php of the component Report Endpoint. The manipulation results in authorization bypass. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-13549"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-29T09:16:27Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "A security flaw has been discovered in CodeAstro Complaint Management System 1.0. The affected element is the function deletereport of the file application/controllers/Report.php of the component Report Endpoint. The manipulation results in authorization bypass. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks.",
"id": "GHSA-6rh3-v235-fwm4",
"modified": "2026-06-29T09:30:28Z",
"published": "2026-06-29T09:30:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-13549"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://codeastro.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ashikmd0507/CVE/tree/main/Unauthenticated%20Arbitrary%20Report%20%26%20File%20Deletion"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-13549"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/submit/843260"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/374557"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/374557/cti"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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-6RH5-23HX-J452
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:05 – Updated: 2024-03-12 14:28An improper authorization vulnerability exists in Jenkins 2.158 and earlier, LTS 2.150.1 and earlier in core/src/main/java/hudson/security/TokenBasedRememberMeServices2.java that allows attackers with Overall/RunScripts permission to craft Remember Me cookies that would never expire, allowing e.g. to persist access to temporarily compromised user accounts.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.150.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.151"
},
{
"fixed": "2.159"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-1003003"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-11-02T00:43:20Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2019-01-22T14:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An improper authorization vulnerability exists in Jenkins 2.158 and earlier, LTS 2.150.1 and earlier in core/src/main/java/hudson/security/TokenBasedRememberMeServices2.java that allows attackers with Overall/RunScripts permission to craft Remember Me cookies that would never expire, allowing e.g. to persist access to temporarily compromised user accounts.",
"id": "GHSA-6rh5-23hx-j452",
"modified": "2024-03-12T14:28:52Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:05:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-1003003"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/commit/7b4649657f90e98a5564cf5f0892deaa5fee0454"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2019:0327"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jenkins.io/security/advisory/2019-01-16/#SECURITY-868"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20200227092104/http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/106680"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Improper Authorization in Jenkins Core"
}
GHSA-6VM3-P7Q5-88MF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-04-29 00:00 – Updated: 2022-05-10 00:00Elcomplus SmartPTT is vulnerable when a low-authenticated user can access higher level administration authorization by issuing requests directly to the desired endpoints.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-43939"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-04-28T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Elcomplus SmartPTT is vulnerable when a low-authenticated user can access higher level administration authorization by issuing requests directly to the desired endpoints.",
"id": "GHSA-6vm3-p7q5-88mf",
"modified": "2022-05-10T00:00:35Z",
"published": "2022-04-29T00:00:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-43939"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ics/advisories/icsa-22-109-04"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation
- Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) 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 you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply 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.
Mitigation MIT-4.4
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
- For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
Mitigation
- For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page.
- One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
Mitigation
Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.
CAPEC-1: Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs
In applications, particularly web applications, access to functionality is mitigated by an authorization framework. This framework maps Access Control Lists (ACLs) to elements of the application's functionality; particularly URL's for web apps. In the case that the administrator failed to specify an ACL for a particular element, an attacker may be able to access it with impunity. An attacker with the ability to access functionality not properly constrained by ACLs can obtain sensitive information and possibly compromise the entire application. Such an attacker can access resources that must be available only to users at a higher privilege level, can access management sections of the application, or can run queries for data that they otherwise not supposed to.
CAPEC-104: Cross Zone Scripting
An attacker is able to cause a victim to load content into their web-browser that bypasses security zone controls and gain access to increased privileges to execute scripting code or other web objects such as unsigned ActiveX controls or applets. This is a privilege elevation attack targeted at zone-based web-browser security.
CAPEC-127: Directory Indexing
An adversary crafts a request to a target that results in the target listing/indexing the content of a directory as output. One common method of triggering directory contents as output is to construct a request containing a path that terminates in a directory name rather than a file name since many applications are configured to provide a list of the directory's contents when such a request is received. An adversary can use this to explore the directory tree on a target as well as learn the names of files. This can often end up revealing test files, backup files, temporary files, hidden files, configuration files, user accounts, script contents, as well as naming conventions, all of which can be used by an attacker to mount additional attacks.
CAPEC-13: Subverting Environment Variable Values
The adversary directly or indirectly modifies environment variables used by or controlling the target software. The adversary's goal is to cause the target software to deviate from its expected operation in a manner that benefits the adversary.
CAPEC-17: Using Malicious Files
An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an adversary to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an adversary to upload a file and then execute it. Web servers, ftp servers, and message oriented middleware systems which have many integration points are particularly vulnerable, because both the programmers and the administrators must be in synch regarding the interfaces and the correct privileges for each interface.
CAPEC-39: Manipulating Opaque Client-based Data Tokens
In circumstances where an application holds important data client-side in tokens (cookies, URLs, data files, and so forth) that data can be manipulated. If client or server-side application components reinterpret that data as authentication tokens or data (such as store item pricing or wallet information) then even opaquely manipulating that data may bear fruit for an Attacker. In this pattern an attacker undermines the assumption that client side tokens have been adequately protected from tampering through use of encryption or obfuscation.
CAPEC-402: Bypassing ATA Password Security
An adversary exploits a weakness in ATA security on a drive to gain access to the information the drive contains without supplying the proper credentials. ATA Security is often employed to protect hard disk information from unauthorized access. The mechanism requires the user to type in a password before the BIOS is allowed access to drive contents. Some implementations of ATA security will accept the ATA command to update the password without the user having authenticated with the BIOS. This occurs because the security mechanism assumes the user has first authenticated via the BIOS prior to sending commands to the drive. Various methods exist for exploiting this flaw, the most common being installing the ATA protected drive into a system lacking ATA security features (a.k.a. hot swapping). Once the drive is installed into the new system the BIOS can be used to reset the drive password.
CAPEC-45: Buffer Overflow via Symbolic Links
This type of attack leverages the use of symbolic links to cause buffer overflows. An adversary can try to create or manipulate a symbolic link file such that its contents result in out of bounds data. When the target software processes the symbolic link file, it could potentially overflow internal buffers with insufficient bounds checking.
CAPEC-5: Blue Boxing
This type of attack against older telephone switches and trunks has been around for decades. A tone is sent by an adversary to impersonate a supervisor signal which has the effect of rerouting or usurping command of the line. While the US infrastructure proper may not contain widespread vulnerabilities to this type of attack, many companies are connected globally through call centers and business process outsourcing. These international systems may be operated in countries which have not upgraded Telco infrastructure and so are vulnerable to Blue boxing. Blue boxing is a result of failure on the part of the system to enforce strong authorization for administrative functions. While the infrastructure is different than standard current applications like web applications, there are historical lessons to be learned to upgrade the access control for administrative functions.
{'xhtml:b': 'This attack pattern is included in CAPEC for historical purposes.'}
CAPEC-51: Poison Web Service Registry
SOA and Web Services often use a registry to perform look up, get schema information, and metadata about services. A poisoned registry can redirect (think phishing for servers) the service requester to a malicious service provider, provide incorrect information in schema or metadata, and delete information about service provider interfaces.
CAPEC-59: Session Credential Falsification through Prediction
This attack targets predictable session ID in order to gain privileges. The attacker can predict the session ID used during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking.
CAPEC-60: Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay)
This attack targets the reuse of valid session ID to spoof the target system in order to gain privileges. The attacker tries to reuse a stolen session ID used previously during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking. Another name for this type of attack is Session Replay.
CAPEC-647: Collect Data from Registries
An adversary exploits a weakness in authorization to gather system-specific data and sensitive information within a registry (e.g., Windows Registry, Mac plist). These contain information about the system configuration, software, operating system, and security. The adversary can leverage information gathered in order to carry out further attacks.
CAPEC-668: Key Negotiation of Bluetooth Attack (KNOB)
An adversary can exploit a flaw in Bluetooth key negotiation allowing them to decrypt information sent between two devices communicating via Bluetooth. The adversary uses an Adversary in the Middle setup to modify packets sent between the two devices during the authentication process, specifically the entropy bits. Knowledge of the number of entropy bits will allow the attacker to easily decrypt information passing over the line of communication.
CAPEC-76: Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls
An attacker manipulates inputs to the target software which the target software passes to file system calls in the OS. The goal is to gain access to, and perhaps modify, areas of the file system that the target software did not intend to be accessible.
CAPEC-77: Manipulating User-Controlled Variables
This attack targets user controlled variables (DEBUG=1, PHP Globals, and So Forth). An adversary can override variables leveraging user-supplied, untrusted query variables directly used on the application server without any data sanitization. In extreme cases, the adversary can change variables controlling the business logic of the application. For instance, in languages like PHP, a number of poorly set default configurations may allow the user to override variables.
CAPEC-87: Forceful Browsing
An attacker employs forceful browsing (direct URL entry) to access portions of a website that are otherwise unreachable. Usually, a front controller or similar design pattern is employed to protect access to portions of a web application. Forceful browsing enables an attacker to access information, perform privileged operations and otherwise reach sections of the web application that have been improperly protected.