Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-863

Allowed-with-Review

Incorrect Authorization

Abstraction: Class · Status: Incomplete

API response cwe.mitre.org

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

5719 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.

GHSA-29G7-9VCG-G9RM

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-11-20 09:30 – Updated: 2024-10-02 06:30
VLAI
Details

Wago web-based management of multiple products has a vulnerability which allows an local authenticated attacker to change the passwords of other non-admin users and thus to escalate non-root privileges.

Severity
5.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-3379"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-269",
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2023-11-20T08:15:44Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Wago web-based management of multiple products has a vulnerability which allows an local authenticated attacker  to change the passwords of other non-admin users and thus to escalate non-root privileges.",
  "id": "GHSA-29g7-9vcg-g9rm",
  "modified": "2024-10-02T06:30:26Z",
  "published": "2023-11-20T09:30:30Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-3379"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://cert.vde.com/en/advisories/VDE-2023-015"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-29H6-3FPG-R7JH

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:14 – Updated: 2022-07-13 00:00
VLAI
Details

Improper Access Control in Jfinal CMS v4.7.1 and earlier allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via the 'FileManager.editFile()' function in the component 'modules/filemanager/FileManagerController.java'.

Severity
6.5 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2020-19154"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-09-15T14:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Improper Access Control in Jfinal CMS v4.7.1 and earlier allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via the \u0027FileManager.editFile()\u0027 function in the component \u0027modules/filemanager/FileManagerController.java\u0027.",
  "id": "GHSA-29h6-3fpg-r7jh",
  "modified": "2022-07-13T00:00:44Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T19:14:39Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-19154"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.seebug.org/vuldb/ssvid-97882"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-29MX-8R38-HFXQ

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-31 15:30 – Updated: 2024-03-21 03:35
VLAI
Details

** UNSUPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED ** Authentication Bypass vulnerability in D-Link DIR-859 FW105b03 allows remote attackers to gain escalated privileges via via phpcgi_main. NOTE: This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.

Severity
9.8 (Critical)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-36092"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2023-07-31T14:15:10Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "** UNSUPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED ** Authentication Bypass vulnerability in D-Link DIR-859 FW105b03 allows remote attackers to gain escalated privileges via via phpcgi_main. NOTE: This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.",
  "id": "GHSA-29mx-8r38-hfxq",
  "modified": "2024-03-21T03:35:36Z",
  "published": "2023-07-31T15:30:25Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-36092"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.dlink.com/en/security-bulletin"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.dlink.com/en/support"
    }
  ],
  "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-29VR-79W7-P649

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-03-11 00:02 – Updated: 2023-07-31 20:36
VLAI
Summary
Duplicate Advisory: Incorrect Authorization in Gerapy
Details

Duplicate Advisory

This advisory has been withdrawn because it is a duplicate of GHSA-9w7f-m4j4-j3xw. This link is maintained to preserve external references.

Original Description

An Access Control vunerabiity exists in Gerapy v 0.9.7 via the spider parameter in project_configure function.

Severity
9.8 (Critical)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "gerapy"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.9.8"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-44597"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2022-03-28T14:23:45Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-03-10T21:15:00Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "## Duplicate Advisory\nThis advisory has been withdrawn because it is a duplicate of GHSA-9w7f-m4j4-j3xw. This link is maintained to preserve external references.\n\n## Original Description\nAn Access Control vunerabiity exists in Gerapy v 0.9.7 via the spider parameter in project_configure function.",
  "id": "GHSA-29vr-79w7-p649",
  "modified": "2023-07-31T20:36:31Z",
  "published": "2022-03-11T00:02:00Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-44597"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/Gerapy/Gerapy/issues/219"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/Gerapy/Gerapy/commit/49bcb19be5e0320e7e1535f34fe00f16a3cf3b28"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/Gerapy/Gerapy"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/Gerapy/Gerapy/releases/tag/v0.9.8"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/gerapy/PYSEC-2022-228.yaml"
    }
  ],
  "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"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Duplicate Advisory: Incorrect Authorization in Gerapy",
  "withdrawn": "2023-07-31T20:36:31Z"
}

GHSA-2C59-QQ5M-3QF7

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:44 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:44
VLAI
Details

Splunk Web in Splunk Enterprise 7.0.x before 7.0.0.1, 6.6.x before 6.6.3.2, 6.5.x before 6.5.6, 6.4.x before 6.4.9, and 6.3.x before 6.3.12, when the SAML authType is enabled, mishandles SAML, which allows remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions or conduct impersonation attacks.

Severity
9.8 (Critical)
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2017-17067"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2017-11-30T02:29:00Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "Splunk Web in Splunk Enterprise 7.0.x before 7.0.0.1, 6.6.x before 6.6.3.2, 6.5.x before 6.5.6, 6.4.x before 6.4.9, and 6.3.x before 6.3.12, when the SAML authType is enabled, mishandles SAML, which allows remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions or conduct impersonation attacks.",
  "id": "GHSA-2c59-qq5m-3qf7",
  "modified": "2022-05-13T01:44:15Z",
  "published": "2022-05-13T01:44:15Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-17067"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.splunk.com/view/SP-CAAAP3K"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/102005"
    }
  ],
  "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"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-2C6V-8R3V-GH6P

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-17 18:43 – Updated: 2026-02-19 21:14
VLAI
Summary
Gogs has a Protected Branch Deletion Bypass in Web Interface
Details

Summary

An access control bypass vulnerability in Gogs web interface allows any repository collaborator with Write permissions to delete protected branches (including the default branch) by sending a direct POST request, completely bypassing the branch protection mechanism. This vulnerability enables privilege escalation from Write to Admin level, allowing low-privilege users to perform dangerous operations that should be restricted to administrators only.

Although Git Hook layer correctly prevents protected branch deletion via SSH push, the web interface deletion operation does not trigger Git Hooks, resulting in complete bypass of protection mechanisms.

Details

Affected Component

  • File: internal/route/repo/branch.go
  • Function: DeleteBranchPost (lines 110-155)
  • Route Configuration: internal/cmd/web.go:589 go m.Post("/delete/*", reqSignIn, reqRepoWriter, repo.DeleteBranchPost)

Root Cause

The DeleteBranchPost function performs the following checks when deleting a branch: 1. ✅ User authentication (reqSignIn) 2. ✅ Write permission check (reqRepoWriter) 3. ✅ Branch existence verification 4. ✅ CommitID matching (optional parameter) 5. ❌ Missing protected branch check 6. ❌ Missing default branch check

While the UI layer (internal/route/repo/issue.go:646-658) correctly checks protected branch status and hides the delete button, attackers can directly construct POST requests to bypass UI restrictions.

Vulnerable Code

Vulnerable implementation (internal/route/repo/branch.go:110-155):

```110:155:internal/route/repo/branch.go func DeleteBranchPost(c context.Context) { branchName := c.Params("") commitID := c.Query("commit")

defer func() {
    redirectTo := c.Query("redirect_to")
    if !tool.IsSameSiteURLPath(redirectTo) {
        redirectTo = c.Repo.RepoLink
    }
    c.Redirect(redirectTo)
}()

if !c.Repo.GitRepo.HasBranch(branchName) {
    return
}
if len(commitID) > 0 {
    branchCommitID, err := c.Repo.GitRepo.BranchCommitID(branchName)
    if err != nil {
        log.Error("Failed to get commit ID of branch %q: %v", branchName, err)
        return
    }

    if branchCommitID != commitID {
        c.Flash.Error(c.Tr("repo.pulls.delete_branch_has_new_commits"))
        return
    }
}

// 🔴 Vulnerability: Missing protected branch check here
// Should add check like:
// protectBranch, err := database.GetProtectBranchOfRepoByName(c.Repo.Repository.ID, branchName)
// if protectBranch != nil && protectBranch.Protected { ... }

if err := c.Repo.GitRepo.DeleteBranch(branchName, git.DeleteBranchOptions{
    Force: true,
}); err != nil {
    log.Error("Failed to delete branch %q: %v", branchName, err)
    return
}

if err := database.PrepareWebhooks(c.Repo.Repository, database.HookEventTypeDelete, &api.DeletePayload{
    Ref:        branchName,
    RefType:    "branch",
    PusherType: api.PUSHER_TYPE_USER,
    Repo:       c.Repo.Repository.APIFormatLegacy(nil),
    Sender:     c.User.APIFormat(),
}); err != nil {
    log.Error("Failed to prepare webhooks for %q: %v", database.HookEventTypeDelete, err)
    return
}

}


**Correct implementation in Git Hook** (`internal/cmd/hook.go:122-125`):

```go
// check and deletion
if newCommitID == git.EmptyID {
    fail(fmt.Sprintf("Branch '%s' is protected from deletion", branchName), "")
}

Correct UI layer check (internal/route/repo/issue.go:646-658):

protectBranch, err := database.GetProtectBranchOfRepoByName(pull.BaseRepoID, pull.HeadBranch)
if err != nil {
    if !database.IsErrBranchNotExist(err) {
        c.Error(err, "get protect branch of repository by name")
        return
    }
} else {
    branchProtected = protectBranch.Protected
}

c.Data["IsPullBranchDeletable"] = pull.BaseRepoID == pull.HeadRepoID &&
    c.Repo.IsWriter() && c.Repo.GitRepo.HasBranch(pull.HeadBranch) &&
    !branchProtected  // UI layer has check, but backend doesn't

PoC

Prerequisites

  1. Have Write permissions to the target repository (collaborator or team member)
  2. Target repository has protected branches configured (e.g., main, master, develop)
  3. Access to Gogs web interface

Send Malicious POST Request

# Directly send DELETE request bypassing UI protection
curl -X POST \
  -b cookies.txt \
  -H "Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded" \
  -d "_csrf=YOUR_CSRF_TOKEN" \
  "https://gogs.example.com/username/repo/branches/delete/main"

image

Impact

  • Bypass branch protection mechanism: The core function of protected branches is to prevent deletion, and this vulnerability completely undermines this mechanism
  • Delete default branch: Can cause repository to become inaccessible (git clone/pull failures)
  • Bypass code review: After deleting protected branch, can push new branch bypassing Pull Request requirements
  • Privilege escalation: Writer permission users can perform operations that should only be allowed for Admins
Severity
7.1 (High)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Go",
        "name": "gogs.io/gogs"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.14.1"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-25232"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-17T18:43:00Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-02-19T07:17:45Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "## Summary\n\nAn access control bypass vulnerability in Gogs web interface allows any repository collaborator with Write permissions to delete protected branches (including the default branch) by sending a direct POST request, completely bypassing the branch protection mechanism. This vulnerability enables privilege escalation from Write to Admin level, allowing low-privilege users to perform dangerous operations that should be restricted to administrators only.\n\nAlthough Git Hook layer correctly prevents protected branch deletion via SSH push, the web interface deletion operation does not trigger Git Hooks, resulting in complete bypass of protection mechanisms.\n\n## Details\n\n### Affected Component\n\n- **File**: `internal/route/repo/branch.go`\n- **Function**: `DeleteBranchPost` (lines 110-155)\n- **Route Configuration**: `internal/cmd/web.go:589`\n  ```go\n  m.Post(\"/delete/*\", reqSignIn, reqRepoWriter, repo.DeleteBranchPost)\n  ```\n\n### Root Cause\n\nThe `DeleteBranchPost` function performs the following checks when deleting a branch:\n1. \u2705 User authentication (`reqSignIn`)\n2. \u2705 Write permission check (`reqRepoWriter`)\n3. \u2705 Branch existence verification\n4. \u2705 CommitID matching (optional parameter)\n5. \u274c **Missing protected branch check**\n6. \u274c **Missing default branch check**\n\nWhile the UI layer (`internal/route/repo/issue.go:646-658`) correctly checks protected branch status and hides the delete button, attackers can directly construct POST requests to bypass UI restrictions.\n\n### Vulnerable Code\n\n**Vulnerable implementation** (`internal/route/repo/branch.go:110-155`):\n\n```110:155:internal/route/repo/branch.go\nfunc DeleteBranchPost(c *context.Context) {\n\tbranchName := c.Params(\"*\")\n\tcommitID := c.Query(\"commit\")\n\n\tdefer func() {\n\t\tredirectTo := c.Query(\"redirect_to\")\n\t\tif !tool.IsSameSiteURLPath(redirectTo) {\n\t\t\tredirectTo = c.Repo.RepoLink\n\t\t}\n\t\tc.Redirect(redirectTo)\n\t}()\n\n\tif !c.Repo.GitRepo.HasBranch(branchName) {\n\t\treturn\n\t}\n\tif len(commitID) \u003e 0 {\n\t\tbranchCommitID, err := c.Repo.GitRepo.BranchCommitID(branchName)\n\t\tif err != nil {\n\t\t\tlog.Error(\"Failed to get commit ID of branch %q: %v\", branchName, err)\n\t\t\treturn\n\t\t}\n\n\t\tif branchCommitID != commitID {\n\t\t\tc.Flash.Error(c.Tr(\"repo.pulls.delete_branch_has_new_commits\"))\n\t\t\treturn\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\n\t// \ud83d\udd34 Vulnerability: Missing protected branch check here\n\t// Should add check like:\n\t// protectBranch, err := database.GetProtectBranchOfRepoByName(c.Repo.Repository.ID, branchName)\n\t// if protectBranch != nil \u0026\u0026 protectBranch.Protected { ... }\n\n\tif err := c.Repo.GitRepo.DeleteBranch(branchName, git.DeleteBranchOptions{\n\t\tForce: true,\n\t}); err != nil {\n\t\tlog.Error(\"Failed to delete branch %q: %v\", branchName, err)\n\t\treturn\n\t}\n\n\tif err := database.PrepareWebhooks(c.Repo.Repository, database.HookEventTypeDelete, \u0026api.DeletePayload{\n\t\tRef:        branchName,\n\t\tRefType:    \"branch\",\n\t\tPusherType: api.PUSHER_TYPE_USER,\n\t\tRepo:       c.Repo.Repository.APIFormatLegacy(nil),\n\t\tSender:     c.User.APIFormat(),\n\t}); err != nil {\n\t\tlog.Error(\"Failed to prepare webhooks for %q: %v\", database.HookEventTypeDelete, err)\n\t\treturn\n\t}\n}\n```\n\n**Correct implementation in Git Hook** (`internal/cmd/hook.go:122-125`):\n\n```go\n// check and deletion\nif newCommitID == git.EmptyID {\n    fail(fmt.Sprintf(\"Branch \u0027%s\u0027 is protected from deletion\", branchName), \"\")\n}\n```\n\n**Correct UI layer check** (`internal/route/repo/issue.go:646-658`):\n\n```go\nprotectBranch, err := database.GetProtectBranchOfRepoByName(pull.BaseRepoID, pull.HeadBranch)\nif err != nil {\n\tif !database.IsErrBranchNotExist(err) {\n\t\tc.Error(err, \"get protect branch of repository by name\")\n\t\treturn\n\t}\n} else {\n\tbranchProtected = protectBranch.Protected\n}\n\nc.Data[\"IsPullBranchDeletable\"] = pull.BaseRepoID == pull.HeadRepoID \u0026\u0026\n\tc.Repo.IsWriter() \u0026\u0026 c.Repo.GitRepo.HasBranch(pull.HeadBranch) \u0026\u0026\n\t!branchProtected  // UI layer has check, but backend doesn\u0027t\n```\n## PoC\n\n### Prerequisites\n\n1. Have Write permissions to the target repository (collaborator or team member)\n2. Target repository has protected branches configured (e.g., main, master, develop)\n3. Access to Gogs web interface\n\n#### Send Malicious POST Request\n```bash\n# Directly send DELETE request bypassing UI protection\ncurl -X POST \\\n  -b cookies.txt \\\n  -H \"Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded\" \\\n  -d \"_csrf=YOUR_CSRF_TOKEN\" \\\n  \"https://gogs.example.com/username/repo/branches/delete/main\"\n```\n\u003cimg width=\"1218\" height=\"518\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/745da7c3-6139-408c-9747-ccbe9ea8548f\" /\u003e\n\n## Impact\n- **Bypass branch protection mechanism**: The core function of protected branches is to prevent deletion, and this vulnerability completely undermines this mechanism\n- **Delete default branch**: Can cause repository to become inaccessible (git clone/pull failures)\n- **Bypass code review**: After deleting protected branch, can push new branch bypassing Pull Request requirements\n- **Privilege escalation**: Writer permission users can perform operations that should only be allowed for Admins",
  "id": "GHSA-2c6v-8r3v-gh6p",
  "modified": "2026-02-19T21:14:56Z",
  "published": "2026-02-17T18:43:00Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/gogs/gogs/security/advisories/GHSA-2c6v-8r3v-gh6p"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-25232"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/gogs/gogs/pull/8124"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/gogs/gogs/commit/7b7e38c88007a7c482dbf31efff896185fd9b79c"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/gogs/gogs"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/gogs/gogs/releases/tag/v0.14.1"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Gogs has a Protected Branch Deletion Bypass in Web Interface"
}

GHSA-2C79-H2H5-G3FW

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:19 – Updated: 2022-12-16 20:33
VLAI
Summary
Multiple vulnerabilities allow bypassing path filtering of agent-to-controller access control in Jenkins
Details

The agent-to-controller security subsystem limits which files on the Jenkins controller can be accessed by agent processes.

Multiple vulnerabilities in the file path filtering implementation of Jenkins 2.318 and earlier, LTS 2.303.2 and earlier allow agent processes to read and write arbitrary files on the Jenkins controller file system, and obtain some information about Jenkins controller file systems.

SECURITY-2531 / CVE-2021-21691: Creating symbolic links is possible without the symlink permission.

We expect that most of these vulnerabilities have been present since SECURITY-144 was addressed in the 2014-10-30 security advisory.

Jenkins 2.319, LTS 2.303.3 addresses these security vulnerabilities.

SECURITY-2531 / CVE-2021-21691: Creating symbolic links now correctly checks the symlink permission.

As some common operations are now newly subject to access control, it is expected that plugins sending commands from agents to the controller may start failing. Additionally, the newly introduced path canonicalization means that instances using a custom builds directory (Java system property jenkins.model.Jenkins.buildsDir) or partitioning JENKINS_HOME using symbolic links may fail access control checks. See the documentation for how to customize the configuration in case of problems.

If you are unable to immediately upgrade to Jenkins 2.319, LTS 2.303.3, you can install the Remoting Security Workaround Plugin. It will prevent all agent-to-controller file access using FilePath APIs. Because it is more restrictive than Jenkins 2.319, LTS 2.303.3, more plugins are incompatible with it. Make sure to read the plugin documentation before installing it.

Severity
9.0 (Critical)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.303.2"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.303.3"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.318"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "2.304"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.319"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-21691"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-59",
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2022-06-23T06:48:06Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-11-04T17:15:00Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "The agent-to-controller security subsystem limits which files on the Jenkins controller can be accessed by agent processes.\n\nMultiple vulnerabilities in the file path filtering implementation of Jenkins 2.318 and earlier, LTS 2.303.2 and earlier allow agent processes to read and write arbitrary files on the Jenkins controller file system, and obtain some information about Jenkins controller file systems.\n\nSECURITY-2531 / CVE-2021-21691: Creating symbolic links is possible without the `symlink` permission.\n\nWe expect that most of these vulnerabilities have been present since [SECURITY-144 was addressed in the 2014-10-30 security advisory](https://www.jenkins.io/security/advisory/2014-10-30/).\n\nJenkins 2.319, LTS 2.303.3 addresses these security vulnerabilities.\n\nSECURITY-2531 / CVE-2021-21691: Creating symbolic links now correctly checks the `symlink` permission.\n\nAs some common operations are now newly subject to access control, it is expected that plugins sending commands from agents to the controller may start failing. Additionally, the newly introduced path canonicalization means that instances using a custom builds directory ([Java system property jenkins.model.Jenkins.buildsDir](https://www.jenkins.io/doc/book/managing/system-properties/#jenkins-model-jenkins-buildsdir)) or partitioning `JENKINS_HOME` using symbolic links may fail access control checks. See [the documentation](https://www.jenkins.io/doc/book/security/controller-isolation/agent-to-controller/#file-access-rules) for how to customize the configuration in case of problems.\n\nIf you are unable to immediately upgrade to Jenkins 2.319, LTS 2.303.3, you can install the [Remoting Security Workaround Plugin](https://www.jenkins.io/redirect/remoting-security-workaround/). It will prevent all agent-to-controller file access using `FilePath` APIs. Because it is more restrictive than Jenkins 2.319, LTS 2.303.3, more plugins are incompatible with it. Make sure to read the plugin documentation before installing it.",
  "id": "GHSA-2c79-h2h5-g3fw",
  "modified": "2022-12-16T20:33:58Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T19:19:44Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-21691"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/commit/63cde2daadc705edf086f2213b48c8c547f98358"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.jenkins.io/security/advisory/2021-11-04/#SECURITY-2455"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Multiple vulnerabilities allow bypassing path filtering of agent-to-controller access control in Jenkins"
}

GHSA-2C7F-7V62-C4P8

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-12-10 00:00 – Updated: 2022-07-13 00:01
VLAI
Details

An improper authorization vulnerabiltiy [CWE-285] in FortiClient Windows versions 7.0.0 and 6.4.6 and below and 6.2.8 and below may allow an unauthenticated attacker to bypass the webfilter control via modifying the session-id paramater.

Severity
5.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-36167"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-12-09T10:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "An improper authorization vulnerabiltiy [CWE-285] in FortiClient Windows versions 7.0.0 and 6.4.6 and below and 6.2.8 and below may allow an unauthenticated attacker to bypass the webfilter control via modifying the session-id paramater.",
  "id": "GHSA-2c7f-7v62-c4p8",
  "modified": "2022-07-13T00:01:29Z",
  "published": "2021-12-10T00:00:47Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-36167"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://fortiguard.com/advisory/FG-IR-20-127"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-2C7Q-MC2R-GX7M

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:05 – Updated: 2022-07-13 00:01
VLAI
Details

An issue was discovered in Cleo LexiCom 5.5.0.0. The requirement for the sender of an AS2 message to identify themselves (via encryption and signing of the message) can be bypassed by changing the Content-Type of the message to text/plain.

Severity
5.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-33577"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-06-18T11:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "An issue was discovered in Cleo LexiCom 5.5.0.0. The requirement for the sender of an AS2 message to identify themselves (via encryption and signing of the message) can be bypassed by changing the Content-Type of the message to text/plain.",
  "id": "GHSA-2c7q-mc2r-gx7m",
  "modified": "2022-07-13T00:01:25Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T19:05:39Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-33577"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/atredispartners/advisories/blob/master/ATREDIS-2020-0011.md"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.cleo.com/cleo-lexicom"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-2C99-9FV7-72HJ

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:38 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:38
VLAI
Details

Nextcloud Server before 11.0.3 is vulnerable to disclosure of valid share tokens for public calendars due to a logical error. Thus granting an attacker potentially access to publicly shared calendars without knowing the share token.

Severity
4.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2017-0894"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-200",
      "CWE-285",
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2017-05-08T20:29:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Nextcloud Server before 11.0.3 is vulnerable to disclosure of valid share tokens for public calendars due to a logical error. Thus granting an attacker potentially access to publicly shared calendars without knowing the share token.",
  "id": "GHSA-2c99-9fv7-72hj",
  "modified": "2022-05-13T01:38:26Z",
  "published": "2022-05-13T01:38:26Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-0894"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/218876"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://nextcloud.com/security/advisory/?id=nc-sa-2017-011"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}
Mitigation
Architecture and Design
  • 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) [REF-229] 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
Architecture and Design

Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied 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 [REF-7].

Mitigation MIT-4.4
Architecture and Design

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
Architecture and Design
  • 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
System Configuration Installation

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.

No CAPEC attack patterns related to this CWE.

← Back to the CWE list