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.
2303 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-W64Q-WX8R-43P6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-04 00:31 – Updated: 2024-04-04 05:21NVIDIA vGPU software contains a vulnerability in the Virtual GPU Manager (vGPU plugin), where a guest OS may be able to control resources for which it is not authorized, which may lead to information disclosure and data tampering.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-25517"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-07-04T00:15:09Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "\nNVIDIA vGPU software contains a vulnerability in the Virtual GPU Manager (vGPU plugin), where a guest OS may be able to control resources for which it is not authorized, which may lead to information disclosure and data tampering.\n\n",
"id": "GHSA-w64q-wx8r-43p6",
"modified": "2024-04-04T05:21:07Z",
"published": "2023-07-04T00:31:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-25517"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5468"
}
],
"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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-W6C7-J32F-RQ8J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-13 09:31 – Updated: 2025-07-16 21:02Improper Authorization vulnerability in Apache Superset allows ownership takeover of dashboards, charts or datasets by authenticated users with read permissions.
This issue affects Apache Superset: through 4.1.1.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 4.1.2 or above, which fixes the issue.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "apache-superset"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.1.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-27696"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-05-13T20:23:45Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-05-13T09:15:20Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Authorization vulnerability in Apache Superset allows ownership takeover of dashboards, charts or datasets by authenticated users with read permissions.\n\nThis issue affects Apache Superset: through 4.1.1.\n\nUsers are recommended to upgrade to version 4.1.2 or above, which fixes the issue.",
"id": "GHSA-w6c7-j32f-rq8j",
"modified": "2025-07-16T21:02:59Z",
"published": "2025-05-13T09:31:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-27696"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/apache/superset/commit/fc844d3dfdace890b32c00a507a959b81122b425"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/apache/superset"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/k2od03bxnxs6vcp80sr03ywcxl194413"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2025/05/12/3"
}
],
"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:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Apache Superset Allows Ownership Takeover"
}
GHSA-W6P3-2C62-JM2G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-08 00:31 – Updated: 2026-05-08 00:31Improper authorization in Microsoft Teams allows an authorized attacker to disclose information over a network.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-33823"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-07T22:16:34Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Improper authorization in Microsoft Teams allows an authorized attacker to disclose information over a network.",
"id": "GHSA-w6p3-2c62-jm2g",
"modified": "2026-05-08T00:31:33Z",
"published": "2026-05-08T00:31:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-33823"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33823"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-W6QF-J4QR-F946
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-12-31 12:30 – Updated: 2023-01-10 16:02Improper Authorization in GitHub repository froxlor/froxlor prior to 2.0.0-beta1.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "froxlor/froxlor"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.0.0-beta0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.0.0-beta1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-4868"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-01-04T15:18:06Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-12-31T10:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Authorization in GitHub repository froxlor/froxlor prior to 2.0.0-beta1.",
"id": "GHSA-w6qf-j4qr-f946",
"modified": "2023-01-10T16:02:57Z",
"published": "2022-12-31T12:30:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-4868"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/froxlor/froxlor/commit/0527f22dc942483430f8449e25a096bb8d683a5d"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/froxlor/froxlor"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.dev/bounties/3a8f36ac-5eda-41e7-a9c4-e0f3d63e6e3b"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Froxlor Improper Authorization vulnerability"
}
GHSA-W73V-V2M6-G85C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-09-04 03:30 – Updated: 2024-09-04 03:30Access control vulnerability in the SystemUI module Impact: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may affect service confidentiality.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-42039"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-09-04T02:15:03Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Access control vulnerability in the SystemUI module\nImpact: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may affect service confidentiality.",
"id": "GHSA-w73v-v2m6-g85c",
"modified": "2024-09-04T03:30:44Z",
"published": "2024-09-04T03:30:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-42039"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://consumer.huawei.com/en/support/bulletin/2024/9"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-W7W4-2CM6-989V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-06-17 00:01 – Updated: 2022-06-17 00:01RoboHelp Server earlier versions than RHS 11 Update 3 are affected by an Improper Authorization vulnerability which could lead to privilege escalation. An authenticated attacker could leverage this vulnerability to achieve full administrator privileges. Exploitation of this issue does not require user interaction.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-30670"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-06-16T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "RoboHelp Server earlier versions than RHS 11 Update 3 are affected by an Improper Authorization vulnerability which could lead to privilege escalation. An authenticated attacker could leverage this vulnerability to achieve full administrator privileges. Exploitation of this issue does not require user interaction.",
"id": "GHSA-w7w4-2cm6-989v",
"modified": "2022-06-17T00:01:26Z",
"published": "2022-06-17T00:01:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-30670"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/robohelp-server/apsb22-31.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-W7WM-2425-7P2H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-02-04 21:23 – Updated: 2025-02-06 18:04Impact
During recovery, a Coordinator only verifies that a given recovery key decrypts the sealed state, not if this key was provided by a party with access to one of the recovery keys defined in the manifest. This allows an attacker to manually craft a sealed state using their own recovery keys, and a manifest that does not match the rest of the state.
If network traffic is redirected from the legitimate coordinator to the attacker's Coordinator, a remote party is susceptible to impersonation if they verify the Coordinator without comparing the root certificate of the Coordinator against a trusted reference.
Under these circumstances, an attacker can trick a remote party into trusting the malicious Coordinator by presenting a manifest that does not match the actual state of the deployment.
This issue does not affect the following:
- secrets and state of the legitimate Coordinator instances
- integrity of workloads
- certificates chaining back to the legitimate Coordinator root certificate
Patches
The issue has been patched in v1.7.0.
Workarounds
Connections that purely authenticate based on a known Coordinator's root certificate, e.g. the one retrieved when using the marblerun manifest set CLI command, are not affected.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/edgelesssys/marblerun"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.7.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-02-04T21:23:48Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nDuring recovery, a Coordinator only verifies that a given recovery key decrypts the sealed state, not if this key was provided by a party with access to one of the recovery keys defined in the manifest.\nThis allows an attacker to manually craft a sealed state using their own recovery keys, and a manifest that does not match the rest of the state.\n\nIf network traffic is redirected from the legitimate coordinator to the attacker\u0027s Coordinator, a remote party is susceptible to impersonation if they verify the Coordinator without comparing the root certificate of the Coordinator against a trusted reference.\n\nUnder these circumstances, an attacker can trick a remote party into trusting the malicious Coordinator by presenting a manifest that does not match the actual state of the deployment.\n\nThis issue does **not** affect the following:\n\n* secrets and state of the legitimate Coordinator instances\n* integrity of workloads\n* certificates chaining back to the legitimate Coordinator root certificate\n\n### Patches\n\nThe issue has been patched in [`v1.7.0`](https://github.com/edgelesssys/marblerun/releases/tag/v1.7.0).\n\n### Workarounds\n\nConnections that purely authenticate based on a known Coordinator\u0027s root certificate, e.g. the one retrieved when using the `marblerun manifest set` CLI command, are not affected.",
"id": "GHSA-w7wm-2425-7p2h",
"modified": "2025-02-06T18:04:37Z",
"published": "2025-02-04T21:23:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/edgelesssys/marblerun/security/advisories/GHSA-w7wm-2425-7p2h"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/edgelesssys/marblerun/commit/e4864f9f1d0f12a4a7d28514da43bcc75603a5b5"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/edgelesssys/marblerun"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/edgelesssys/marblerun/releases/tag/v1.7.0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2025-3450"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "MarbleRun unauthenticated recovery allows Coordinator impersonation"
}
GHSA-W894-P576-W9CP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-08-06 00:00 – Updated: 2022-08-12 00:01Using off-the-shelf commodity hardware, the Unitree Go 1 robotics platform version H0.1.7 and H0.1.9 (using firmware version 0.1.35) can be powered down by an attacker within normal RF range without authentication. Other versions may be affected, such as the A1.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-2675"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-287"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-08-05T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Using off-the-shelf commodity hardware, the Unitree Go 1 robotics platform version H0.1.7 and H0.1.9 (using firmware version 0.1.35) can be powered down by an attacker within normal RF range without authentication. Other versions may be affected, such as the A1.",
"id": "GHSA-w894-p576-w9cp",
"modified": "2022-08-12T00:01:23Z",
"published": "2022-08-06T00:00:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-2675"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://fccid.io/2A5PE-YUSHU001/Users-Manual/User-Manual-5810729"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://twitter.com/d0tslash/status/1555326302462394370"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mybotshop.de/Datasheet/Unitree_A1_User_Manual_v1.0.pdf"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-W8FP-G9RH-34JH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-31 22:51 – Updated: 2026-03-31 22:51Summary
The Enforcer incorrectly validates scope paths by using a simple prefix match (startswith). This allows a token with access to a specific path (e.g., /john) to also access sibling paths that start with the same prefix (e.g., /johnathan, /johnny), which is an Authorization Bypass.
Details
File: src/scitokens/scitokens.py
Methods: _validate_scp and _validate_scope
Vulnerable Code Snippets:
In _validate_scp (around line 696):
for scope in value:
authz, norm_path = self._check_scope(scope)
if (self._test_authz == authz) and norm_requested_path.startswith(norm_path):
return True
In _validate_scope (around line 722):
for scope in value.split(" "):
authz, norm_path = self._check_scope(scope)
if (self._test_authz == authz) and norm_requested_path.startswith(norm_path):
return True
If norm_path (authorized) is /john and norm_requested_path (requested) is /johnathan, startswith returns True, incorrectly granting access.
PoC
import scitokens
import sys
def poc_scope_bypass():
"""
Demonstrate an Authorization Bypass vulnerability in scope path checking.
"""
print("--- PoC: Incorrect Scope Path Checking (Authorization Bypass) ---")
issuer = "https://scitokens.org/unittest"
enforcer = scitokens.Enforcer(issuer)
# Create a token with access to /john
token = scitokens.SciToken()
token['iss'] = issuer
token['scope'] = "read:/john"
print(f"Authorized path in scope: /john")
# 1. Test access to /john/file (should be allowed)
print(f"[1] Testing legitimate subpath: /john/file")
if enforcer.test(token, 'read', '/john/file'):
print(" -> Access GRANTED (Correct behavior)")
else:
print(" -> Access DENIED (Incorrect behavior - should have access to subpaths)")
# 2. Test access to /johnathan (SHOULD BE DENIED)
print(f"[2] Testing illegitimate sibling path: /johnathan")
if enforcer.test(token, 'read', '/johnathan'):
print(" -> [VULNERABILITY] Access GRANTED! This is an authorization bypass.")
else:
print(" -> Access DENIED (Correct behavior - fix is working)")
# 3. Test access to /johnny (SHOULD BE DENIED)
print(f"[3] Testing illegitimate sibling path: /johnny")
if enforcer.test(token, 'read', '/johnny'):
print(" -> [VULNERABILITY] Access GRANTED! This is an authorization bypass.")
else:
print(" -> Access DENIED (Correct behavior - fix is working)")
if __name__ == "__main__":
# Ensure scitokens from src/ is available
sys.path.insert(0, "src")
poc_scope_bypass()
Impact
This bug allows a user to access resources they are not authorized for. For example, if a system uses usernames as top-level directories in a shared storage, a user john might be able to read or write to the directory of user johnathan simply because their names share a prefix.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "scitokens"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.9.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-32716"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-31T22:51:03Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-31T03:15:57Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\nThe `Enforcer` incorrectly validates scope paths by using a simple prefix match (`startswith`). This allows a token with access to a specific path (e.g., `/john`) to also access sibling paths that start with the same prefix (e.g., `/johnathan`, `/johnny`), which is an **Authorization Bypass**.\n\n### Details\n**File:** `src/scitokens/scitokens.py` \n**Methods:** `_validate_scp` and `_validate_scope`\n\n### Vulnerable Code Snippets:\n\n**In `_validate_scp` (around line 696):**\n```python\n for scope in value:\n authz, norm_path = self._check_scope(scope)\n if (self._test_authz == authz) and norm_requested_path.startswith(norm_path):\n return True\n```\n\n**In `_validate_scope` (around line 722):**\n```python\n for scope in value.split(\" \"):\n authz, norm_path = self._check_scope(scope)\n if (self._test_authz == authz) and norm_requested_path.startswith(norm_path):\n return True\n```\n\nIf `norm_path` (authorized) is `/john` and `norm_requested_path` (requested) is `/johnathan`, `startswith` returns `True`, incorrectly granting access.\n\n### PoC\n```\n\nimport scitokens\nimport sys\n\ndef poc_scope_bypass():\n \"\"\"\n Demonstrate an Authorization Bypass vulnerability in scope path checking.\n \"\"\"\n print(\"--- PoC: Incorrect Scope Path Checking (Authorization Bypass) ---\")\n \n issuer = \"https://scitokens.org/unittest\"\n enforcer = scitokens.Enforcer(issuer)\n \n # Create a token with access to /john\n token = scitokens.SciToken()\n token[\u0027iss\u0027] = issuer\n token[\u0027scope\u0027] = \"read:/john\"\n \n print(f\"Authorized path in scope: /john\")\n \n # 1. Test access to /john/file (should be allowed)\n print(f\"[1] Testing legitimate subpath: /john/file\")\n if enforcer.test(token, \u0027read\u0027, \u0027/john/file\u0027):\n print(\" -\u003e Access GRANTED (Correct behavior)\")\n else:\n print(\" -\u003e Access DENIED (Incorrect behavior - should have access to subpaths)\")\n\n # 2. Test access to /johnathan (SHOULD BE DENIED)\n print(f\"[2] Testing illegitimate sibling path: /johnathan\")\n if enforcer.test(token, \u0027read\u0027, \u0027/johnathan\u0027):\n print(\" -\u003e [VULNERABILITY] Access GRANTED! This is an authorization bypass.\")\n else:\n print(\" -\u003e Access DENIED (Correct behavior - fix is working)\")\n\n # 3. Test access to /johnny (SHOULD BE DENIED)\n print(f\"[3] Testing illegitimate sibling path: /johnny\")\n if enforcer.test(token, \u0027read\u0027, \u0027/johnny\u0027):\n print(\" -\u003e [VULNERABILITY] Access GRANTED! This is an authorization bypass.\")\n else:\n print(\" -\u003e Access DENIED (Correct behavior - fix is working)\")\n\nif __name__ == \"__main__\":\n # Ensure scitokens from src/ is available\n sys.path.insert(0, \"src\")\n poc_scope_bypass()\n\n```\n### Impact\nThis bug allows a user to access resources they are not authorized for. For example, if a system uses usernames as top-level directories in a shared storage, a user `john` might be able to read or write to the directory of user `johnathan` simply because their names share a prefix.",
"id": "GHSA-w8fp-g9rh-34jh",
"modified": "2026-03-31T22:51:03Z",
"published": "2026-03-31T22:51:03Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/scitokens/scitokens/security/advisories/GHSA-w8fp-g9rh-34jh"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-32716"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/scitokens/scitokens/commit/7a237c0f642efb9e8c36ac564b745895cca83583"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/scitokens/scitokens"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/scitokens/scitokens/releases/tag/v1.9.6"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "SciTokens has an Authorization Bypass via Incorrect Scope Path Prefix Checking"
}
GHSA-W8HW-GCRW-WJ77
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-02 09:31 – Updated: 2026-05-02 09:31The Booking for Appointments and Events Calendar – Amelia plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Improper Authorization in all versions up to, and including, 2.1.2. This is due to a logical short-circuit flaw in authorization logic that causes token validation to be entirely skipped when a booking has a 'waiting' status. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to approve any booking that is in 'waiting' status by sending a crafted request to the publicly-accessible admin-ajax endpoint.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-6449"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-02T08:16:27Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Booking for Appointments and Events Calendar \u2013 Amelia plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Improper Authorization in all versions up to, and including, 2.1.2. This is due to a logical short-circuit flaw in authorization logic that causes token validation to be entirely skipped when a booking has a \u0027waiting\u0027 status. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to approve any booking that is in \u0027waiting\u0027 status by sending a crafted request to the publicly-accessible admin-ajax endpoint.",
"id": "GHSA-w8hw-gcrw-wj77",
"modified": "2026-05-02T09:31:15Z",
"published": "2026-05-02T09:31:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-6449"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/ameliabooking/tags/2.1.2/src/Application/Commands/Booking/Appointment/ApproveBookingRemotelyCommandHandler.php#L97"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/ameliabooking/tags/2.1.2/src/Application/Controller/Booking/Appointment/ApproveBookingRemotelyController.php#L41"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/ameliabooking/tags/2.1.2/src/Application/Services/User/UserApplicationService.php#L647"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/ameliabooking/trunk/src/Application/Commands/Booking/Appointment/ApproveBookingRemotelyCommandHandler.php#L97"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/ameliabooking/trunk/src/Application/Controller/Booking/Appointment/ApproveBookingRemotelyController.php#L41"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/ameliabooking/trunk/src/Application/Services/User/UserApplicationService.php#L647"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail=\u0026reponame=\u0026old=3516430%40ameliabooking\u0026new=3516430%40ameliabooking\u0026sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail="
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/8d7cc468-eeba-497f-9e11-79d4bebdd7a2?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation
- 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.