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.
2767 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-P59R-2CP8-97MR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-14 21:31 – Updated: 2026-09-17 18:31An authorization issue was addressed with improved access control. This issue is fixed in iOS 26.7 and iPadOS 26.7, iOS 27 and iPadOS 27, macOS Golden Gate 27, macOS Sequoia 15.8, macOS Tahoe 26.7. An app may be able to access sensitive user data.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-84621"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-14T21:17:37Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An authorization issue was addressed with improved access control. This issue is fixed in iOS 26.7 and iPadOS 26.7, iOS 27 and iPadOS 27, macOS Golden Gate 27, macOS Sequoia 15.8, macOS Tahoe 26.7. An app may be able to access sensitive user data.",
"id": "GHSA-p59r-2cp8-97mr",
"modified": "2026-09-17T18:31:34Z",
"published": "2026-09-14T21:31:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-84621"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/149034"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/149035"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/149041"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/149042"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/149043"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-P5R3-M3W4-4FJ6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-02 12:31 – Updated: 2026-06-02 21:30An improper authorization vulnerability has been identified in Apache Kafka.
The implementation of the CONSUMER_GROUP_DESCRIBE (69) API validates the DESCRIBE operation on the GROUP resource instead of the READ operation that documented in the official kafka documentation and the KIP-848. This discrepancy can result in misconfigured Access Control Lists (ACLs) and unintended security postures, like granting READ permission to users who should not be able to join/sync groups, or allowing users without READ permission (but with DESCRIBE permission) to access sensitive group metadata.
The correct permission for CONSUMER_GROUP_DESCRIBE API is DESCRIBE GROUP so the current implementation is correct. However, the kafka documentation as well as the KIP-848 will be updated to reflect the correct permission. We advise the Kafka users to review existing group ACLs to ensure the principle of least privilege.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-41115"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-02T10:16:25Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An improper authorization vulnerability has been identified in Apache Kafka.\n\nThe implementation of the CONSUMER_GROUP_DESCRIBE (69) API validates the DESCRIBE operation on the GROUP resource instead of the READ operation that documented in the official kafka documentation and the KIP-848. This discrepancy can result in misconfigured Access Control Lists (ACLs) and unintended security postures, like granting READ permission to users who should not be able to join/sync groups, or allowing users without READ permission (but with DESCRIBE permission) to access sensitive group metadata.\n\nThe correct permission for CONSUMER_GROUP_DESCRIBE API is DESCRIBE GROUP so the current implementation is correct. However, the kafka documentation as well as the KIP-848 will be updated to reflect the correct permission. We advise the Kafka users to review existing group ACLs to ensure the principle of least privilege.",
"id": "GHSA-p5r3-m3w4-4fj6",
"modified": "2026-06-02T21:30:41Z",
"published": "2026-06-02T12:31:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-41115"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://kafka.apache.org/cve-list"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/06/02/5"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-P653-P8P8-PW6M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-03 12:30 – Updated: 2025-03-03 12:30Information disclosure while deriving keys for a session for any Widevine use case.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-43051"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-03-03T11:15:11Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Information disclosure while deriving keys for a session for any Widevine use case.",
"id": "GHSA-p653-p8p8-pw6m",
"modified": "2025-03-03T12:30:32Z",
"published": "2025-03-03T12:30:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-43051"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.qualcomm.com/product/publicresources/securitybulletin/march-2025-bulletin.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-P77J-4MVH-X3M3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-18 20:10 – Updated: 2026-03-25 18:12Impact
What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?
It is an Authorization Bypass resulting from Improper Input Validation of the HTTP/2 :path pseudo-header.
The gRPC-Go server was too lenient in its routing logic, accepting requests where the :path omitted the mandatory leading slash (e.g., Service/Method instead of /Service/Method). While the server successfully routed these requests to the correct handler, authorization interceptors (including the official grpc/authz package) evaluated the raw, non-canonical path string. Consequently, "deny" rules defined using canonical paths (starting with /) failed to match the incoming request, allowing it to bypass the policy if a fallback "allow" rule was present.
Who is impacted?
This affects gRPC-Go servers that meet both of the following criteria:
1. They use path-based authorization interceptors, such as the official RBAC implementation in google.golang.org/grpc/authz or custom interceptors relying on info.FullMethod or grpc.Method(ctx).
2. Their security policy contains specific "deny" rules for canonical paths but allows other requests by default (a fallback "allow" rule).
The vulnerability is exploitable by an attacker who can send raw HTTP/2 frames with malformed :path headers directly to the gRPC server.
Patches
Has the problem been patched? What versions should users upgrade to?
Yes, the issue has been patched. The fix ensures that any request with a :path that does not start with a leading slash is immediately rejected with a codes.Unimplemented error, preventing it from reaching authorization interceptors or handlers with a non-canonical path string.
Users should upgrade to the following versions (or newer): * v1.79.3 * The latest master branch.
It is recommended that all users employing path-based authorization (especially grpc/authz) upgrade as soon as the patch is available in a tagged release.
Workarounds
Is there a way for users to fix or remediate the vulnerability without upgrading?
While upgrading is the most secure and recommended path, users can mitigate the vulnerability using one of the following methods:
1. Use a Validating Interceptor (Recommended Mitigation)
Add an "outermost" interceptor to your server that validates the path before any other authorization logic runs:
func pathValidationInterceptor(ctx context.Context, req any, info *grpc.UnaryServerInfo, handler grpc.UnaryHandler) (any, error) {
if info.FullMethod == "" || info.FullMethod[0] != '/' {
return nil, status.Errorf(codes.Unimplemented, "malformed method name")
}
return handler(ctx, req)
}
// Ensure this is the FIRST interceptor in your chain
s := grpc.NewServer(
grpc.ChainUnaryInterceptor(pathValidationInterceptor, authzInterceptor),
)
2. Infrastructure-Level Normalization
If your gRPC server is behind a reverse proxy or load balancer (such as Envoy, NGINX, or an L7 Cloud Load Balancer), ensure it is configured to enforce strict HTTP/2 compliance for pseudo-headers and reject or normalize requests where the :path header does not start with a leading slash.
3. Policy Hardening
Switch to a "default deny" posture in your authorization policies (explicitly listing all allowed paths and denying everything else) to reduce the risk of bypasses via malformed inputs.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "google.golang.org/grpc"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.79.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-33186"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-18T20:10:29Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-20T23:16:45Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "### Impact\n_What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?_\n\nIt is an **Authorization Bypass** resulting from **Improper Input Validation** of the HTTP/2 `:path` pseudo-header.\n\nThe gRPC-Go server was too lenient in its routing logic, accepting requests where the `:path` omitted the mandatory leading slash (e.g., `Service/Method` instead of `/Service/Method`). While the server successfully routed these requests to the correct handler, authorization interceptors (including the official `grpc/authz` package) evaluated the raw, non-canonical path string. Consequently, \"deny\" rules defined using canonical paths (starting with `/`) failed to match the incoming request, allowing it to bypass the policy if a fallback \"allow\" rule was present.\n\n**Who is impacted?**\nThis affects gRPC-Go servers that meet both of the following criteria:\n1. They use path-based authorization interceptors, such as the official RBAC implementation in `google.golang.org/grpc/authz` or custom interceptors relying on `info.FullMethod` or `grpc.Method(ctx)`.\n2. Their security policy contains specific \"deny\" rules for canonical paths but allows other requests by default (a fallback \"allow\" rule).\n\nThe vulnerability is exploitable by an attacker who can send raw HTTP/2 frames with malformed `:path` headers directly to the gRPC server.\n\n### Patches\n_Has the problem been patched? What versions should users upgrade to?_\n\nYes, the issue has been patched. The fix ensures that any request with a `:path` that does not start with a leading slash is immediately rejected with a `codes.Unimplemented` error, preventing it from reaching authorization interceptors or handlers with a non-canonical path string.\n\nUsers should upgrade to the following versions (or newer):\n* **v1.79.3**\n* The latest **master** branch.\n\nIt is recommended that all users employing path-based authorization (especially `grpc/authz`) upgrade as soon as the patch is available in a tagged release.\n\n### Workarounds\n_Is there a way for users to fix or remediate the vulnerability without upgrading?_\n\nWhile upgrading is the most secure and recommended path, users can mitigate the vulnerability using one of the following methods:\n\n#### 1. Use a Validating Interceptor (Recommended Mitigation)\nAdd an \"outermost\" interceptor to your server that validates the path before any other authorization logic runs:\n\n```go\nfunc pathValidationInterceptor(ctx context.Context, req any, info *grpc.UnaryServerInfo, handler grpc.UnaryHandler) (any, error) {\n if info.FullMethod == \"\" || info.FullMethod[0] != \u0027/\u0027 {\n return nil, status.Errorf(codes.Unimplemented, \"malformed method name\")\n } \n return handler(ctx, req)\n}\n\n// Ensure this is the FIRST interceptor in your chain\ns := grpc.NewServer(\n grpc.ChainUnaryInterceptor(pathValidationInterceptor, authzInterceptor),\n)\n```\n\n#### 2. Infrastructure-Level Normalization\nIf your gRPC server is behind a reverse proxy or load balancer (such as Envoy, NGINX, or an L7 Cloud Load Balancer), ensure it is configured to enforce strict HTTP/2 compliance for pseudo-headers and reject or normalize requests where the `:path` header does not start with a leading slash.\n\n#### 3. Policy Hardening\nSwitch to a \"default deny\" posture in your authorization policies (explicitly listing all allowed paths and denying everything else) to reduce the risk of bypasses via malformed inputs.",
"id": "GHSA-p77j-4mvh-x3m3",
"modified": "2026-03-25T18:12:09Z",
"published": "2026-03-18T20:10:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/grpc/grpc-go/security/advisories/GHSA-p77j-4mvh-x3m3"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-33186"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/grpc/grpc-go"
}
],
"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": "gRPC-Go has an authorization bypass via missing leading slash in :path"
}
GHSA-P77J-G7H5-R2VW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-19 19:22 – Updated: 2026-08-19 19:23GeoLens 1.2.4 fixes a set of vulnerabilities, the most serious of which allow authenticated or anonymous users to obtain data and metadata for datasets they are not authorized to access.
Impact
- Private record metadata disclosure. Record contact, keyword, and distribution sub-resource endpoints did not re-authorize the backing dataset, so any authenticated user could read a private record's contact details (PII), keywords, and distributions. (Runtime-proven.)
- Private tile data via shared caches. Private raster and vector tiles were served with shared-cache (
Cache-Control: public) headers, so a shared cache (a CDN or the bundled reverse proxy) could retain private tile bytes and replay them to later unauthenticated requests, including unpublished public-dataset previews. - Private dataset title enumeration. The map visibility-check endpoint did not authorize read access to the map, allowing any editor to enumerate the titles of non-public datasets in any map by ID — including private maps owned by other users.
- SSRF via DNS rebinding. URL validation for user-supplied service URLs (probes, STAC/OGC API sources, manifest downloads) resolved DNS once and then let the HTTP client re-resolve at connect time, allowing a low-TTL domain to pass validation as a public address and connect to an internal/metadata address.
- Token leak + header injection in service preview. The remote-service preview path passed the authorization token to GDAL via the process environment without sanitization, leaking it through
/proc/<pid>/environand allowing CRLF header injection. - Unauthenticated STAC search DoS.
POST /searchdid not cap the size of GeoJSONintersectsgeometries (theGETsibling did). - API key written to access logs. The bundled reverse proxy logged the
api_keyquery-string credential in cleartext. - Security posture coupled to a logging flag. API documentation exposure and the Secure flag on the OAuth session cookie were keyed off the
LOG_JSONlogging flag rather than an explicit environment setting, so a production deployment at the default could expose/docsand emit a non-Secure session cookie. - Missing Content-Security-Policy (defense-in-depth). The web application shipped no
script-src/default-srcCSP, leaving no containment for token exfiltration if an XSS issue were introduced. - Weak default install credentials. The installer kept the published default database password and could silently retain the default admin password on a headless install.
Patches
Upgrade to GeoLens 1.2.4. No configuration changes are required for the authorization and cache fixes. Operators on a public, TLS-terminated deployment should additionally set ENVIRONMENT=production to make the production security posture explicit; deployments that do not set it retain their prior behavior.
Workarounds
None for the authorization/cache disclosure flaws — upgrading is required. The SSRF and STAC-DoS surfaces can be partially mitigated at the network/proxy layer (egress filtering to block link-local metadata addresses; a request-size limit on POST /search), but the code fix is the durable remedy.
References
- Release: https://github.com/geolens-io/geolens/releases/tag/v1.2.4
- Pull request: https://github.com/geolens-io/geolens/pull/243
- Prior related advisory: GHSA-p23g-mvhj-jh3j
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "geolens"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.2.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-1021",
"CWE-1392",
"CWE-200",
"CWE-285",
"CWE-400",
"CWE-524",
"CWE-532",
"CWE-918",
"CWE-93"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-08-19T19:22:59Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "GeoLens 1.2.4 fixes a set of vulnerabilities, the most serious of which allow authenticated or anonymous users to obtain data and metadata for datasets they are not authorized to access.\n\n### Impact\n\n- **Private record metadata disclosure.** Record contact, keyword, and distribution sub-resource endpoints did not re-authorize the backing dataset, so any authenticated user could read a private record\u0027s contact details (PII), keywords, and distributions. (Runtime-proven.)\n- **Private tile data via shared caches.** Private raster and vector tiles were served with shared-cache (`Cache-Control: public`) headers, so a shared cache (a CDN or the bundled reverse proxy) could retain private tile bytes and replay them to later unauthenticated requests, including unpublished public-dataset previews.\n- **Private dataset title enumeration.** The map visibility-check endpoint did not authorize read access to the map, allowing any editor to enumerate the titles of non-public datasets in any map by ID \u2014 including private maps owned by other users.\n- **SSRF via DNS rebinding.** URL validation for user-supplied service URLs (probes, STAC/OGC API sources, manifest downloads) resolved DNS once and then let the HTTP client re-resolve at connect time, allowing a low-TTL domain to pass validation as a public address and connect to an internal/metadata address.\n- **Token leak + header injection in service preview.** The remote-service preview path passed the authorization token to GDAL via the process environment without sanitization, leaking it through `/proc/\u003cpid\u003e/environ` and allowing CRLF header injection.\n- **Unauthenticated STAC search DoS.** `POST /search` did not cap the size of GeoJSON `intersects` geometries (the `GET` sibling did).\n- **API key written to access logs.** The bundled reverse proxy logged the `api_key` query-string credential in cleartext.\n- **Security posture coupled to a logging flag.** API documentation exposure and the Secure flag on the OAuth session cookie were keyed off the `LOG_JSON` logging flag rather than an explicit environment setting, so a production deployment at the default could expose `/docs` and emit a non-Secure session cookie.\n- **Missing Content-Security-Policy (defense-in-depth).** The web application shipped no `script-src`/`default-src` CSP, leaving no containment for token exfiltration if an XSS issue were introduced.\n- **Weak default install credentials.** The installer kept the published default database password and could silently retain the default admin password on a headless install.\n\n### Patches\n\nUpgrade to **GeoLens 1.2.4**. No configuration changes are required for the authorization and cache fixes. Operators on a public, TLS-terminated deployment should additionally set `ENVIRONMENT=production` to make the production security posture explicit; deployments that do not set it retain their prior behavior.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nNone for the authorization/cache disclosure flaws \u2014 upgrading is required. The SSRF and STAC-DoS surfaces can be partially mitigated at the network/proxy layer (egress filtering to block link-local metadata addresses; a request-size limit on `POST /search`), but the code fix is the durable remedy.\n\n### References\n\n- Release: https://github.com/geolens-io/geolens/releases/tag/v1.2.4\n- Pull request: https://github.com/geolens-io/geolens/pull/243\n- Prior related advisory: GHSA-p23g-mvhj-jh3j",
"id": "GHSA-p77j-g7h5-r2vw",
"modified": "2026-08-19T19:23:00Z",
"published": "2026-08-19T19:22:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/geolens-io/geolens/security/advisories/GHSA-p77j-g7h5-r2vw"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/geolens-io/geolens/pull/243"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-p23g-mvhj-jh3j"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/geolens-io/geolens"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/geolens-io/geolens/releases/tag/v1.2.4"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [],
"summary": "GeoLens\u0027s authorization and cache-scope flaws disclose private dataset data and metadata to unauthorized users (fixed in 1.2.4)"
}
GHSA-P7M7-J8JV-393Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:33 – Updated: 2024-01-11 17:38Magento version 2.4.0 and 2.3.5p1 (and earlier) are affected by an incorrect permissions issue vulnerability in the Inventory module. This vulnerability could be abused by authenticated users to modify inventory stock data without authorization.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.3.5-p2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.3.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.4.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.4.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-24405"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-01-11T17:38:39Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2020-11-09T01:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Magento version 2.4.0 and 2.3.5p1 (and earlier) are affected by an incorrect permissions issue vulnerability in the Inventory module. This vulnerability could be abused by authenticated users to modify inventory stock data without authorization.",
"id": "GHSA-p7m7-j8jv-393q",
"modified": "2024-01-11T17:38:39Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:33:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-24405"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/magento/magento2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/magento/apsb20-59.html"
}
],
"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": "Magento incorrect permissions vulnerability in the Inventory module"
}
GHSA-P882-FHHG-97P6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-25 03:31 – Updated: 2026-03-25 21:30The issue was addressed with improved checks. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.7.5, macOS Sonoma 14.8.5, macOS Tahoe 26.4. An app may be able to access sensitive user data.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-28839"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-25T01:17:08Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The issue was addressed with improved checks. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.7.5, macOS Sonoma 14.8.5, macOS Tahoe 26.4. An app may be able to access sensitive user data.",
"id": "GHSA-p882-fhhg-97p6",
"modified": "2026-03-25T21:30:30Z",
"published": "2026-03-25T03:31:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-28839"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/126794"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/126795"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/126796"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-P897-VF7J-F5H8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-21 12:30 – Updated: 2026-09-14 18:11A security flaw has been discovered in BerriAI litellm up to 1.82.5. Affected is the function async_pre_call_hook of the file enterprise/enterprise_hooks/banned_keywords.py of the component Completions Interface. The manipulation of the argument prompt results in incorrect authorization. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "litellm"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "1.82.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-12797"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-09-14T18:11:28Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-21T10:16:16Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "A security flaw has been discovered in BerriAI litellm up to 1.82.5. Affected is the function async_pre_call_hook of the file enterprise/enterprise_hooks/banned_keywords.py of the component Completions Interface. The manipulation of the argument prompt results in incorrect authorization. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure.",
"id": "GHSA-p897-vf7j-f5h8",
"modified": "2026-09-14T18:11:28Z",
"published": "2026-06-21T12:30:52Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-12797"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/YLChen-007/078179224f07cc4e39e4f141a18c817a"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/BerriAI/litellm"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-12797"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/submit/811288"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/372559"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/372559/cti"
}
],
"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:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "BerriAI litellm has Security Feature Bypass in BannedKeywords and AzureContentSafety Guardrails via call_type Mismatch on Async Endpoints"
}
GHSA-P8FW-8MF8-RWQ8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-18 06:31 – Updated: 2026-07-18 06:31A flaw has been found in AstrBotDevs AstrBot up to 4.25.5. This vulnerability affects the function OpenApiRoute.get_chat_sessions of the file astrbot/dashboard/routes/open_api.py of the component session-listing Endpoint. This manipulation of the argument Username causes authorization bypass. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-16075"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-18T05:16:52Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "A flaw has been found in AstrBotDevs AstrBot up to 4.25.5. This vulnerability affects the function OpenApiRoute.get_chat_sessions of the file astrbot/dashboard/routes/open_api.py of the component session-listing Endpoint. This manipulation of the argument Username causes authorization bypass. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.",
"id": "GHSA-p8fw-8mf8-rwq8",
"modified": "2026-07-18T06:31:55Z",
"published": "2026-07-18T06:31:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-16075"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/YLChen-007/5fee3adfd95333b0f4eff8165af61f81"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-16075"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/submit/852863"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/379790"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/379790/cti"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/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-P8X7-9VFW-P7VC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-06 21:04 – Updated: 2026-08-06 21:04The vulnerability allows any authenticated user to change their own password without providing the current password or having an active elevated session. It also allows the attacker to change other users’ passwords if the attacker’s account has edit users permission (which doesn’t allow changing others’ passwords) and lacks Administrate users permission (which is required to change others’ passwords).
The vulnerability exists in the elements/save action when saving a User element. The UserPasswordValidator applies only a safe validator to the newPassword field without an on scenario restriction. This makes newPassword mass-assignable during the generic element save flow, completely bypassing the dedicated users/set-password action that enforces elevated session verification.
An attacker with any authenticated session (whether it’s hijacked or a normal / low-privileged user) can change their own password, and potentially take over administrator accounts.
Required Permissions
- Access the control panel
- Edit users (needed for the account takeover attack scenario)
Impact
- Any authenticated user can change their own password without providing their current password.
- Users with Edit users permission can change any user’s password, including administrators.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "craftcms/cms"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "5.0.0-RC1"
},
{
"fixed": "5.10.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-08-06T21:04:11Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The vulnerability allows any authenticated user to change their own password without providing the current password or having an active elevated session. It also allows the attacker to change other users\u2019 passwords if the attacker\u2019s account has `edit users` permission (which doesn\u2019t allow changing others\u2019 passwords) and lacks `Administrate users` permission (which is required to change others\u2019 passwords).\n\nThe vulnerability exists in the `elements/save` action when saving a User element. The `UserPasswordValidator` applies only a `safe` validator to the `newPassword` field without an `on` scenario restriction. This makes `newPassword` mass-assignable during the generic element save flow, completely bypassing the dedicated `users/set-password` action that enforces elevated session verification.\n\nAn attacker with any authenticated session (whether it\u2019s hijacked or a normal / low-privileged user) can change their own password, and potentially take over administrator accounts.\n\n## Required Permissions\n- Access the control panel\n- Edit users (needed for the account takeover attack scenario)\n\n## Impact\n- Any authenticated user can change their own password without providing their current password.\n- Users with Edit users permission can change any user\u2019s password, including administrators.",
"id": "GHSA-p8x7-9vfw-p7vc",
"modified": "2026-08-06T21:04:11Z",
"published": "2026-08-06T21:04:11Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/craftcms/cms/security/advisories/GHSA-p8x7-9vfw-p7vc"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/craftcms/cms/commit/cbdf45fbd3ab548b147d7de375f6f6f580b7c294"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/craftcms/cms"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/craftcms/cms/releases/tag/5.10.8"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [],
"summary": "Craft CMS: Arbitrary user password reset leading to administrator account takeover"
}
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.