<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
  <id>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/rss/recent/all/10</id>
  <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
  <updated>2026-10-08T23:51:02.136038+00:00</updated>
  <author>
    <name>Vulnerability-Lookup</name>
    <email>info@circl.lu</email>
  </author>
  <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu" rel="alternate"/>
  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="1.0.0">python-feedgen</generator>
  <subtitle>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</subtitle>
  <entry>
    <id>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/fkie_cve-2026-43976</id>
    <title>fkie_cve-2026-43976</title>
    <updated>2026-10-08T23:51:02.140724+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>wger is a free, open-source workout and fitness manager. Prior to version 2.6, five gym management views in wger apply a flawed gym-scope guard (`gym_a != gym_b`) that silently passes when both operands are `None`. A trainer with `gym.gym_trainer` and `gym.add_adminusernote` permissions and no gym assignment (`gym=None`) can read private admin notes, uploaded documents, gym contracts, user configuration, and user permission data for **any other unaffiliated user** on the instance. The subsequent querysets filter only on the attacker-supplied `member_id` with no secondary gym-scoped validation, so all records are disclosed. Version 2.6 fixes the issue.</p>
      </div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/fkie_cve-2026-43976"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/ghsa-c72h-82w6-rqfp</id>
    <title>GHSA-c72h-82w6-rqfp — wger: cross-tenant admin notes/contracts leak via gym=None bypass (5 views)</title>
    <updated>2026-10-08T23:51:02.140870+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><strong>Affected:</strong> PyPI: wger</p>
<p>### Summary</p>
<p>Five gym management views in wger apply a flawed gym-scope guard (`gym_a != gym_b`) that silently passes when both operands are `None`. A trainer with `gym.gym_trainer` and `gym.add_adminusernote` permissions and no gym assignment (`gym=None`) can read private admin notes, uploaded documents, gym contracts, user configuration, and user permission data for **any other unaffiliated user** on the instance. The subsequent querysets filter only on the attacker-supplied `member_id` with no secondary gym-scoped validation, so all records are disclosed.</p>
<p>### Details</p>
<p>**Files**: `wger/gym/views/user.py`, `wger/gym/views/admin_notes.py`, `wger/gym/views/document.py`, `wger/gym/views/contract.py`, `wger/gym/views/user_config.py`</p>
<p>The same flawed comparison pattern appears across at least five views:</p>
<p>```python
# VULNERABLE - applied in admin_notes_list, documents_list, contracts_list,
#              user_config, and gym_permissions_user_edit
if request.user.userprofile.gym != user.userprofile.gym:
    return HttpResponseForbidden()</p>
<p># After the guard (admin notes example):
notes = AdminUserNote.objects.filter(member=member)  # only filtered by member_id
```</p>
<p>When both `request.user.userprofile.gym` and `user.userprofile.gym` are `None`, Python evaluates `None != None` as `False`, and `HttpResponseForbidden` is never reached. The subsequent queryset applies only the attacker-supplied `member` (user ID) as a filter — there is no secondary check tying the queryset to the requ…</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/ghsa-c72h-82w6-rqfp"/>
  </entry>
</feed>
