| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Kimai versions before 2.65.0 contain an authorization bypass vulnerability in the REST API timesheet collection endpoint that fails to enforce activity-team access controls. Users with view_other_timesheet permission can list timesheets using activities restricted to teams they do not belong to, bypassing intended data isolation. |
| Kimai versions from 2.61.0 before 2.63.0 fail to disable admin-only work-contract preferences for low-privilege users in the PATCH /api/users/{id}/preferences endpoint. Although the web interface gates these employment-contract fields behind the contract_other_profile admin permission, the WorkContractPreferenceSubscriber (introduced in 2.61.0) registers the preferences as enabled without a permission check, so an authenticated regular user can use the API to modify their own admin-only work-contract data. The issue is fixed in 2.63.0 by applying the same permission check to the API endpoint. |
| Missing Authorization vulnerability in John James Jacoby bbPress allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.
This issue affects bbPress: from n/a through 2.6.14. |
| Missing Authorization (CWE-862) in Kibana can lead to unauthorized execution of Elastic Defend response actions on managed hosts via Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (CAPEC-1). A Kibana user who holds only detection rule authoring privileges for the Elastic Security solution can associate automated endpoint response actions with a detection rule, even though the dedicated Endpoint response action privileges that govern those capabilities (host isolation, process operations, and execute operations) have not been granted to that user. When such a rule generates alerts, the associated response actions are carried out against the matching hosts. |
| Missing Authorization (CWE-862) in Kibana can lead to information disclosure via Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (CAPEC-1). An internal Kibana data retrieval capability used by Elastic Defend endpoint response actions did not enforce the Security Solution and endpoint privileges that its user-facing equivalents require, and it retrieved data with elevated internal permissions rather than the permissions of the requesting user. As a result, an authenticated low-privileged Kibana user with no Security Solution privileges, endpoint privileges and no Elasticsearch privileges on the underlying data, could read endpoint response action records and the corresponding response content returned by managed hosts. |
| Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) in Kibana can lead to unauthorized deletion of Synthetics private locations via Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (CAPEC-1). Synthetics private locations can be shared with more than one space, and deleting one removes it from every space it is shared with. The safeguard that prevented the deletion of a private location still in use evaluated only the monitors visible in the requesting user's own space, so monitors that depend on the private location in other spaces were not taken into account. As a result, an authenticated Kibana user holding the Synthetics write privilege in a single space could delete a private location that other spaces still depend on, even where the user has no access to those spaces. Deleting the private location removes the shared configuration and stops the monitors in the other spaces from running, which suppresses the availability monitoring those spaces rely on. |
| Missing Authorization (CWE-862) in Kibana can lead to unauthorized execution of Osquery and Elastic Defend response actions on managed hosts via Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (CAPEC-1). A Kibana user who is able to author and evaluate Elastic Security detection rules can cause response actions to be carried out against enrolled agents without holding the Osquery live query privileges or the Elastic Defend response action privileges that normally govern those capabilities. Depending on the response action involved, this can result in disclosure of information from the affected hosts or in unauthorized changes to their state. |
| Missing Authorization (CWE-862) in Kibana can lead to cross-space information disclosure and unauthorized data modification via Privilege Abuse (CAPEC-122). Kibana Machine Learning carries out its Elasticsearch operations with elevated internal permissions and relies on a per-request space filter to keep the machine learning data of one space separated from another. Part of the Machine Learning functionality did not apply that filter, so operations issued from one space were carried out against the machine learning data of every space in the deployment. |
| The MultiVendorX WordPress plugin before 5.0.15 does not have proper authorisation controls on one of its REST API listing routes, allowing unauthenticated users to retrieve vendor contact and payout details, pending payout amounts, and administrative notes attached to store applications. |
| The WC Vendors WordPress plugin before 2.7.2.1 does not verify that the vendor submitting a front-end order shipment status change owns the referenced order, allowing any authenticated vendor to mark another vendor's order as shipped, add an order note falsely attributed to the victim vendor, and trigger the customer shipment notification email. |
| Craft CMS versions from 5.7.0 before 5.10.12 contain an information disclosure vulnerability in AssetsController::actionMoveInfo that fails to enforce volume permissions. Authenticated control panel users can submit POST requests to the assets/move-info endpoint with arbitrary folderIds to retrieve asset count and total storage size for volumes they cannot access. |
| Craft CMS versions before 5.10.11 contain an authorization bypass vulnerability in ElementsController::actionDuplicate() that allows authenticated users with createEntries permission to delete peer provisional drafts. Attackers can exploit the deleteProvisionalDraft parameter to delete another user's unsaved draft without proper authorization checks, gaining access to the victim's in-progress content. |
| Craft CMS versions before 5.10.11 contain a broken access control vulnerability in the element-indexes/save-elements endpoint that allows control panel users to move entries into sections they cannot edit. Attackers with limited section permissions can relocate or publish entries to unauthorized sections by overwriting the sectionId attribute after initial authorization checks, bypassing the destination section permission validation. |
| Unauthenticated Broken Access Control in Ultimate Gift Cards For WooCommerce <= 3.2.9 versions. |
| The Rank Math SEO WordPress plugin before 1.0.277 does not perform a capability check when bulk metadata updates target taxonomy terms, and reuses the supplied object identifier across object types, allowing users with the Author role and above to modify the SEO metadata of terms they cannot edit and to overwrite the titles of posts belonging to other users. |
| The Booking for Appointments and Events Calendar WordPress plugin before 2.4.9 does not require authentication or a valid request token before running the post-booking action chain, allowing an unauthenticated user to trigger booking notifications and integration callbacks for a booking by enumerating its identifier. |
| Spring Security's embedded UnboundID LDAP server (UnboundIdContainer) unconditionally registers an administrative credential and binds its listener to all available network interfaces.
Spring Security 7.1.0
Spring Security 7.0.0 - 7.0.6
Spring Security 6.5.0 - 6.5.11
Spring Security 6.4.0 - 6.4.18
Spring Security 5.8.0 - 5.8.27
Spring Security 5.7.0 - 5.7.25 |
| gRPC-Go is the Go language implementation of gRPC. Prior to 1.83.1, the xDS RBAC HTTP filter in internal/xds/httpfilter/rbac/rbac.go does not lowercase header matcher names in normalizeHeaderMatcher even though incoming metadata keys are lowercase. A DENY policy using a mixed-case name such as X-Role or User-Agent therefore does not match and fails open, allowing requests that should be rejected. The same case mismatch permits :Scheme or Grpc-Status to evade gRFC A41 validation and prevents Host from being rewritten to :authority. This issue is fixed in version 1.83.1. |
| Incorrect Authorization vulnerability in ash-project ash authorizes an aggregate under one read action while computing it under another, so an aggregate can run with policies that do not match the action it was authorized against.
Ash.Actions.Aggregate groups aggregates by their {authorize?, read_action} and authorizes each group under that read action, but when building the data query it selected the action as opts[:action] || read_action || <primary read> (lib/ash/actions/aggregate.ex). When a caller passed an :action option, the aggregate query ran under that action while authorization had been computed for the group's own read_action. If the run action's read policies are more permissive than the authorized one, the aggregate (a count or sum) is computed over records the authorized action's policies would have excluded, disclosing information about data the actor cannot read. The fix runs the aggregate under the same read_action it is authorized against.
This issue affects ash: from 3.5.13 before 3.32.2. |
| Missing Authorization vulnerability in ash-project ash allows an actor to update records forbidden by resource policies through the atomic path of Ash.update_many/4.
Ash.update_many/4 runs as a single atomic statement (a data-layer update_many, for example a SQL MERGE) whenever an atomic strategy is used and the data layer supports it. Ash.Actions.Update.UpdateMany (lib/ash/actions/update/update_many.ex) took that path even under authorize?: true without applying the resource's policies, so the statement updated every row matched by primary key regardless of the policy filter that authorization would impose. An actor could therefore update records the policies forbid, such as rows belonging to another actor or tenant. The fix restricts the atomic path to data layers supporting changeset filters when authorizing, authorizes each changeset, and merges the resulting policy filter into each changeset so the statement only touches authorized rows.
This issue affects ash: from 3.29.0 before 3.32.2. |
