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-QG67-7M6V-QG25
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-18 17:15 – Updated: 2026-09-18 17:15Summary
A bearer token with only pull and push scopes can successfully delete manifests and blobs from a zot registry. The bearer authentication handler maps all non-GET/HEAD HTTP methods, including DELETE, to the "push" action, and the DistSpecAuthzHandler middleware is bypassed entirely for bearer-authenticated requests. This allows any client holding a push-only bearer token to delete arbitrary manifests and blobs within the token's repository scope, in violation of the Docker Distribution Token Authentication Specification.
Details
The vulnerability exists in two interacting components:
1. Action Mapping Collapse (pkg/api/authn.go:571–586)
The bearer authentication handler maps HTTP methods to token scope actions using a binary check:
action := "pull"
if m := request.Method; m != http.MethodGet && m != http.MethodHead {
action = "push"
}
This collapses DELETE, PUT, PATCH, and POST into a single "push" action. The "delete" action is never assigned.
2. Authorization Bypass for Bearer Auth (pkg/api/authz.go:270–275, 318–323)
When a request is authenticated via bearer token, the DistSpecAuthzHandler middleware, which performs fine-grained action inference (distinguishing create, read, update, and delete) is bypassed entirely:
if err != nil || (authnMwCtx != nil && authnMwCtx.AuthnType == BEARER) {
next.ServeHTTP(response, request)
return
}
3. No Handler-Level Authorization Check
Neither DeleteManifest (routes.go:799–884) nor DeleteBlob (routes.go:1192–1241) performs an independent authorization check for delete permission before executing the deletion.
Deviation from Specification and Reference Implementation
The [Docker Distribution Token Scope Documentation](https://distribution.github.io/distribution/spec/auth/scope/) defines delete as a distinct action separate from push. The reference implementation ([distribution/distribution](https://github.com/distribution/distribution/blob/main/registry/handlers/app.go)) correctly maps DELETE requests to the "delete" action:
case http.MethodDelete:
records = append(records,
auth.Access{
Resource: resource,
Action: "delete",
})
Furthermore, zot's own native access-control configuration explicitly distinguishes delete as a separate permission from create and update, confirming the project's intent that delete is a distinct authorization action.
Suggested Fix
In pkg/api/authn.go, the action mapping should distinguish DELETE:
action := "pull"
switch {
case m == http.MethodGet || m == http.MethodHead:
action = "pull"
case m == http.MethodDelete:
action = "delete"
default:
action = "push"
}
The DistSpecAuthzHandler bypass for bearer-authenticated requests (authz.go:270–275) should also be reconsidered to ensure bearer-authenticated requests receive equivalently granular authorization checks.
PoC
Prerequisites: zot v2.1.15 with bearer authentication enabled, and a token server issuing JWTs with actions: ["pull", "push"] (no "delete").
Steps to Reproduce:
- Configure zot with bearer authentication pointing to a token server
- Obtain a bearer token with scope
repository:poc-test:pull,push(no delete) - Upload a config blob:
curl -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/octet-stream" \
-X POST "http://127.0.0.1:5001/v2/poc-test/blobs/uploads/?digest=sha256:44136fa355b3678a1146ad16f7e8649e94fb4fc21fe77e8310c060f61caaff8a" \
-d '{}'
# → 201 Created
- Push a manifest tagged
v1.0(succeeds token has push):
curl -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/vnd.oci.image.manifest.v1+json" \
-X PUT "http://127.0.0.1:5001/v2/poc-test/manifests/v1.0" \
-d '{"schemaVersion":2,"mediaType":"application/vnd.oci.image.manifest.v1+json","config":{"mediaType":"application/vnd.oci.image.config.v1+json","digest":"sha256:44136fa355b3678a1146ad16f7e8649e94fb4fc21fe77e8310c060f61caaff8a","size":2},"layers":[]}'
# → 201 Created
- DELETE the manifest with the same push-only token (should return 401, but returns 202):
curl -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
-X DELETE "http://127.0.0.1:5001/v2/poc-test/manifests/v1.0"
# → 202 Accepted (VULNERABLE)
- Confirm the manifest is gone:
curl -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
"http://127.0.0.1:5001/v2/poc-test/manifests/v1.0"
# → 404 Not Found
Expected behavior: Step 5 should return 401 Unauthorized with a WWW-Authenticate header requesting scope="repository:poc-test:delete".
Actual behavior: Step 5 returns 202 Accepted and the manifest is permanently deleted.
A complete reproducer (minimal Go token server + zot config + automated script) is available upon request.
Impact
Privilege Escalation / Unauthorized Deletion Any bearer token with push scope can delete manifests and blobs, even when the token was explicitly issued without delete permissions.
This is particularly impactful in CI/CD environments where automated systems are issued least-privilege tokens with only pull and push permissions. A compromised or stolen CI token which should only be able to build and push images can be used to:
- Delete arbitrary manifests (tags) within any repository covered by the token's scope
- Delete arbitrary blobs within those repositories
- Render production container images unpullable
- Rewrite image history by removing specific tags
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "zotregistry.dev/zot/v2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.1.18"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-61833"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-09-18T17:15:19Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nA bearer token with only `pull` and `push` scopes can successfully delete manifests and blobs from a zot registry. The bearer authentication handler maps all non-GET/HEAD HTTP methods, including DELETE, to the `\"push\"` action, and the `DistSpecAuthzHandler` middleware is bypassed entirely for bearer-authenticated requests. This allows any client holding a push-only bearer token to delete arbitrary manifests and blobs within the token\u0027s repository scope, in violation of the [Docker Distribution Token Authentication Specification](https://distribution.github.io/distribution/spec/auth/scope/).\n\n### Details\n\nThe vulnerability exists in two interacting components:\n\n**1. Action Mapping Collapse (`pkg/api/authn.go:571\u2013586`)**\n\nThe bearer authentication handler maps HTTP methods to token scope actions using a binary check:\n\n```go\naction := \"pull\"\nif m := request.Method; m != http.MethodGet \u0026\u0026 m != http.MethodHead {\n action = \"push\"\n}\n```\n\nThis collapses DELETE, PUT, PATCH, and POST into a single `\"push\"` action. The `\"delete\"` action is never assigned.\n\n**2. Authorization Bypass for Bearer Auth (`pkg/api/authz.go:270\u2013275, 318\u2013323`)**\n\nWhen a request is authenticated via bearer token, the `DistSpecAuthzHandler` middleware, which performs fine-grained action inference (distinguishing `create`, `read`, `update`, and `delete`) is bypassed entirely:\n\n```go\nif err != nil || (authnMwCtx != nil \u0026\u0026 authnMwCtx.AuthnType == BEARER) {\n next.ServeHTTP(response, request)\n return\n}\n```\n\n**3. No Handler-Level Authorization Check**\n\nNeither `DeleteManifest` (`routes.go:799\u2013884`) nor `DeleteBlob` (`routes.go:1192\u20131241`) performs an independent authorization check for delete permission before executing the deletion.\n\n**Deviation from Specification and Reference Implementation**\n\nThe [[Docker Distribution Token Scope Documentation](https://distribution.github.io/distribution/spec/auth/scope/)](https://distribution.github.io/distribution/spec/auth/scope/) defines `delete` as a distinct action separate from `push`. The reference implementation ([[distribution/distribution](https://github.com/distribution/distribution/blob/main/registry/handlers/app.go)](https://github.com/distribution/distribution/blob/main/registry/handlers/app.go)) correctly maps DELETE requests to the `\"delete\"` action:\n\n```go\ncase http.MethodDelete:\n records = append(records,\n auth.Access{\n Resource: resource,\n Action: \"delete\",\n })\n```\n\nFurthermore, zot\u0027s own native access-control configuration explicitly distinguishes `delete` as a separate permission from `create` and `update`, confirming the project\u0027s intent that delete is a distinct authorization action.\n\n**Suggested Fix**\n\nIn `pkg/api/authn.go`, the action mapping should distinguish DELETE:\n\n```go\naction := \"pull\"\nswitch {\ncase m == http.MethodGet || m == http.MethodHead:\n action = \"pull\"\ncase m == http.MethodDelete:\n action = \"delete\"\ndefault:\n action = \"push\"\n}\n```\n\nThe `DistSpecAuthzHandler` bypass for bearer-authenticated requests (`authz.go:270\u2013275`) should also be reconsidered to ensure bearer-authenticated requests receive equivalently granular authorization checks.\n\n### PoC\n\n**Prerequisites:** zot v2.1.15 with bearer authentication enabled, and a token server issuing JWTs with `actions: [\"pull\", \"push\"]` (no `\"delete\"`).\n\n**Steps to Reproduce:**\n\n1. Configure zot with bearer authentication pointing to a token server\n2. Obtain a bearer token with scope `repository:poc-test:pull,push` (no delete)\n3. Upload a config blob:\n```bash\ncurl -H \"Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN\" \\\n -H \"Content-Type: application/octet-stream\" \\\n -X POST \"http://127.0.0.1:5001/v2/poc-test/blobs/uploads/?digest=sha256:44136fa355b3678a1146ad16f7e8649e94fb4fc21fe77e8310c060f61caaff8a\" \\\n -d \u0027{}\u0027\n# \u2192 201 Created\n```\n4. Push a manifest tagged `v1.0` (succeeds token has push):\n```bash\ncurl -H \"Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN\" \\\n -H \"Content-Type: application/vnd.oci.image.manifest.v1+json\" \\\n -X PUT \"http://127.0.0.1:5001/v2/poc-test/manifests/v1.0\" \\\n -d \u0027{\"schemaVersion\":2,\"mediaType\":\"application/vnd.oci.image.manifest.v1+json\",\"config\":{\"mediaType\":\"application/vnd.oci.image.config.v1+json\",\"digest\":\"sha256:44136fa355b3678a1146ad16f7e8649e94fb4fc21fe77e8310c060f61caaff8a\",\"size\":2},\"layers\":[]}\u0027\n# \u2192 201 Created\n```\n5. DELETE the manifest with the same push-only token (**should return 401, but returns 202**):\n```bash\ncurl -H \"Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN\" \\\n -X DELETE \"http://127.0.0.1:5001/v2/poc-test/manifests/v1.0\"\n# \u2192 202 Accepted (VULNERABLE)\n```\n6. Confirm the manifest is gone:\n```bash\ncurl -o /dev/null -w \"%{http_code}\" -H \"Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN\" \\\n \"http://127.0.0.1:5001/v2/poc-test/manifests/v1.0\"\n# \u2192 404 Not Found\n```\n\n**Expected behavior:** Step 5 should return `401 Unauthorized` with a `WWW-Authenticate` header requesting `scope=\"repository:poc-test:delete\"`.\n\n**Actual behavior:** Step 5 returns `202 Accepted` and the manifest is permanently deleted.\n\nA complete reproducer (minimal Go token server + zot config + automated script) is available upon request.\n\n### Impact\n\n**Privilege Escalation / Unauthorized Deletion** Any bearer token with push scope can delete manifests and blobs, even when the token was explicitly issued without delete permissions.\n\nThis is particularly impactful in CI/CD environments where automated systems are issued least-privilege tokens with only pull and push permissions. A compromised or stolen CI token which should only be able to build and push images can be used to:\n\n- Delete arbitrary manifests (tags) within any repository covered by the token\u0027s scope\n- Delete arbitrary blobs within those repositories\n- Render production container images unpullable\n- Rewrite image history by removing specific tags",
"id": "GHSA-qg67-7m6v-qg25",
"modified": "2026-09-18T17:15:19Z",
"published": "2026-09-18T17:15:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/project-zot/zot/security/advisories/GHSA-qg67-7m6v-qg25"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/project-zot/zot/pull/4161"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/project-zot/zot/commit/7bb211bcd4352b90f3e99752607fbd1f050bf7ca"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/project-zot/zot"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/project-zot/zot/releases/tag/v2.1.18"
}
],
"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:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "zot: Bearer authentication maps DELETE to push scope, allowing unauthorized deletion"
}
GHSA-QGJ7-QP4F-2MG6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-06 21:15 – Updated: 2024-04-04 05:48In Splunk Enterprise versions below 9.0.5, 8.2.11. and 8.1.14, and Splunk Cloud Platform versions below 9.0.2303.100, a low-privileged user who holds the ‘user’ role can see the hashed version of the initial user name and password for the Splunk instance by using the ‘rest’ SPL command against the ‘conf-user-seed’ REST endpoint.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-32709"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-06-01T17:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In Splunk Enterprise versions below 9.0.5, 8.2.11. and 8.1.14, and Splunk Cloud Platform versions below 9.0.2303.100, a low-privileged user who holds the \u2018user\u2019 role can see the hashed version of the initial user name and password for the Splunk instance by using the \u2018rest\u2019 SPL command against the \u2018conf-user-seed\u2019 REST endpoint.",
"id": "GHSA-qgj7-qp4f-2mg6",
"modified": "2024-04-04T05:48:25Z",
"published": "2023-07-06T21:15:06Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-32709"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://advisory.splunk.com/advisories/SVD-2023-0604"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://research.splunk.com/application/a1be424d-e59c-4583-b6f9-2dcc23be4875"
}
],
"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-QH29-9J77-HQW6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-09 21:31 – Updated: 2026-04-08 18:32The LearnPress – WordPress LMS Plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Insecure Direct Object Reference in all versions up to, and including, 4.2.6.3 due to missing validation on a user controlled key when looking up order information. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers to obtain information on orders placed by other users and guests, which can be leveraged to sign up for paid courses that were purchased by guests. Emails of other users are also exposed.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-1289"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-639"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-09T19:15:15Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The LearnPress \u2013 WordPress LMS Plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Insecure Direct Object Reference in all versions up to, and including, 4.2.6.3 due to missing validation on a user controlled key when looking up order information. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers to obtain information on orders placed by other users and guests, which can be leveraged to sign up for paid courses that were purchased by guests. Emails of other users are also exposed.",
"id": "GHSA-qh29-9j77-hqw6",
"modified": "2026-04-08T18:32:53Z",
"published": "2024-04-09T21:31:57Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-1289"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail=\u0026reponame=\u0026old=3042945%40learnpress%2Ftags%2F4.2.6.3\u0026new=3061851%40learnpress%2Ftags%2F4.2.6.4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/0c410d91-08cc-496d-9c8e-c57f107399da?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-QH55-XVW3-M7WP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-01-10 18:30 – Updated: 2026-04-08 18:32The Royal Elementor Addons plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to insufficient access control in the 'wpr_activate_required_plugins' AJAX action in versions up to, and including, 1.3.59. This allows any authenticated user, including those with subscriber-level permissions, to activate the 'contact-form-7', 'media-library-assistant', or 'woocommerce' plugins if they are installed on the site.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-4701"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-01-10T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Royal Elementor Addons plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to insufficient access control in the \u0027wpr_activate_required_plugins\u0027 AJAX action in versions up to, and including, 1.3.59. This allows any authenticated user, including those with subscriber-level permissions, to activate the \u0027contact-form-7\u0027, \u0027media-library-assistant\u0027, or \u0027woocommerce\u0027 plugins if they are installed on the site.",
"id": "GHSA-qh55-xvw3-m7wp",
"modified": "2026-04-08T18:32:00Z",
"published": "2023-01-10T18:30:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-4701"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/royal-elementor-addons/trunk/admin/templates-kit.php?rev=2833046"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2023/01/eleven-vulnerabilities-patched-in-royal-elementor-addons"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/55f7e39b-e7a5-462b-b1e4-c3d92038f17e"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/55f7e39b-e7a5-462b-b1e4-c3d92038f17e?source=cve"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-QH6W-PQ52-QXXQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-02-19 03:30 – Updated: 2023-03-01 01:49Improper Authorization in GitHub repository pixelfed/pixelfed 0.11.4 and prior.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "pixelfed/pixelfed"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "0.11.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-0914"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-02-22T00:04:37Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-02-19T01:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Authorization in GitHub repository pixelfed/pixelfed 0.11.4 and prior.",
"id": "GHSA-qh6w-pq52-qxxq",
"modified": "2023-03-01T01:49:02Z",
"published": "2023-02-19T03:30:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-0914"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pixelfed/pixelfed/commit/ef56f92c3d77e9bafaa70c08b7c04d5a61b8d454"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/pixelfed/pixelfed"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.dev/bounties/54d5fd76-e038-4eda-9e03-d5e95e09c0ec"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Pixelfed may allow unauthorized actor to view private posts"
}
GHSA-QHM9-9GFP-672C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-14 18:32 – Updated: 2026-07-14 18:32Improper authorization in Microsoft Office SharePoint allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-58277"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-14T18:18:36Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Improper authorization in Microsoft Office SharePoint allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.",
"id": "GHSA-qhm9-9gfp-672c",
"modified": "2026-07-14T18:32:40Z",
"published": "2026-07-14T18:32:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-58277"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58277"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-QHQ3-6VGR-J7JC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-05-18 12:30 – Updated: 2023-05-18 12:30Sensitive information disclosure due to improper authorization. The following products are affected: Acronis Cyber Infrastructure (ACI) before build 5.3.1-38.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-2782"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-05-18T11:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Sensitive information disclosure due to improper authorization. The following products are affected: Acronis Cyber Infrastructure (ACI) before build 5.3.1-38.",
"id": "GHSA-qhq3-6vgr-j7jc",
"modified": "2023-05-18T12:30:15Z",
"published": "2023-05-18T12:30:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-2782"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security-advisory.acronis.com/advisories/SEC-3475"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-QJ54-WMJW-H6GF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-07-09 06:30 – Updated: 2024-07-09 06:30In SAP Commerce, a user can misuse the forgotten password functionality to gain access to a Composable Storefront B2B site for which early login and registration is activated, without requiring the merchant to approve the account beforehand. If the site is not configured as isolated site, this can also grant access to other non-isolated early login sites, even if registration is not enabled for those other sites.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-39597"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-07-09T04:15:13Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In SAP Commerce, a user can misuse the forgotten\npassword functionality to gain access to a Composable Storefront B2B site for\nwhich early login and registration is activated, without requiring the merchant\nto approve the account beforehand. If the site is not configured as isolated\nsite, this can also grant access to other non-isolated early login sites, even\nif registration is not enabled for those other sites.",
"id": "GHSA-qj54-wmjw-h6gf",
"modified": "2024-07-09T06:30:38Z",
"published": "2024-07-09T06:30:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-39597"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://me.sap.com/notes/3490515"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://url.sap/sapsecuritypatchday"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-QJ89-GQXQ-9F84
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-07-17 00:32 – Updated: 2025-11-04 18:31Vulnerability in the MySQL Server product of Oracle MySQL (component: InnoDB). Supported versions that are affected are 8.0.36 and prior and 8.3.0 and prior. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows high privileged attacker with network access via multiple protocols to compromise MySQL Server. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized ability to cause a hang or frequently repeatable crash (complete DOS) of MySQL Server. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 4.9 (Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-21159"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-07-16T23:15:18Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Vulnerability in the MySQL Server product of Oracle MySQL (component: InnoDB). Supported versions that are affected are 8.0.36 and prior and 8.3.0 and prior. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows high privileged attacker with network access via multiple protocols to compromise MySQL Server. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized ability to cause a hang or frequently repeatable crash (complete DOS) of MySQL Server. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 4.9 (Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H).",
"id": "GHSA-qj89-gqxq-9f84",
"modified": "2025-11-04T18:31:07Z",
"published": "2024-07-17T00:32:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-21159"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20240801-0002"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpujul2024.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-QJG9-922R-8886
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-15 18:32 – Updated: 2026-09-15 18:32This High severity Improper Authorization vulnerability was introduced in versions 7.4.0, 7.13.0, 8.5.0, 8.9.0, 9.0.1, 9.1.0, 9.2.0, 9.3.1, 9.4.0, 9.5.1, 10.0.2, 10.1.0, and 10.2.0 of Confluence Data Center.
This Improper Authorization vulnerability, with a CVSS Score of 7.1, allows an authenticated attacker to gain unintended access and can lead to the exposure of resources or functionality, possibly providing attackers with sensitive information or even execute arbitrary code.
Atlassian recommends that Confluence Data Center customers upgrade to latest version, if you are unable to do so, upgrade your instance to one of the specified supported fixed versions: Confluence Data Center 9.2: Upgrade to a release greater than or equal to 9.2.24
Confluence Data Center 10.2: Upgrade to a release greater than or equal to 10.2.17
See the release notes ([https://confluence.atlassian.com/doc/confluence-release-notes-327.html]). You can download the latest version of Confluence Data Center from the download center ([https://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/download-archives]).
This vulnerability was reported via our Penetration Testing program.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-21586"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-15T17:17:11Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "This High severity Improper Authorization vulnerability was introduced in versions 7.4.0, 7.13.0, 8.5.0, 8.9.0, 9.0.1, 9.1.0, 9.2.0, 9.3.1, 9.4.0, 9.5.1, 10.0.2, 10.1.0, and 10.2.0 of Confluence Data Center.\n\nThis Improper Authorization vulnerability, with a CVSS Score of 7.1, allows an authenticated attacker to gain unintended access and can lead to the exposure of resources or functionality, possibly providing attackers with sensitive information or even execute arbitrary code.\n\nAtlassian recommends that Confluence Data Center customers upgrade to latest version, if you are unable to do so, upgrade your instance to one of the specified supported fixed versions:\n Confluence Data Center 9.2: Upgrade to a release greater than or equal to 9.2.24\n\n Confluence Data Center 10.2: Upgrade to a release greater than or equal to 10.2.17\n\nSee the release notes ([https://confluence.atlassian.com/doc/confluence-release-notes-327.html]). You can download the latest version of Confluence Data Center from the download center ([https://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/download-archives]).\n\nThis vulnerability was reported via our Penetration Testing program.",
"id": "GHSA-qjg9-922r-8886",
"modified": "2026-09-15T18:32:32Z",
"published": "2026-09-15T18:32:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-21586"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://confluence.atlassian.com/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=1822852209"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/CONFSERVER-104418"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
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.