| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Incorrect authorization in HID in Google Chrome prior to 157.0.8103.38 allowed a remote attacker to bypass system access restrictions via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low) |
| Incorrect authorization in CacheStorage in Google Chrome prior to 157.0.8103.38 allowed a remote attacker who had compromised the renderer process to bypass site isolation via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium) |
| Incorrect authorization in API in Google Chrome prior to 157.0.8103.38 allowed a remote attacker who had compromised the renderer process to bypass system access restrictions via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium) |
| Incorrect authorization in ORB in Google Chrome prior to 157.0.8103.38 allowed a remote attacker to bypass site isolation via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low) |
| Temporal Server does not bind a workflow-history pagination token to the namespace and workflow named in the request that presents it. GetWorkflowExecutionHistory and GetWorkflowExecutionHistoryReverse authorize the caller against the namespace in the request, then select history from the branch recorded inside the caller-supplied next_page_token. The normal history continuation carries a run identifier, event bounds, a persistence cursor, and a branch token, but no namespace or workflow identity, and it is serialized as unauthenticated protobuf bytes. An authenticated caller holding read permission on one namespace, together with a genuine non-final continuation issued earlier for a workflow in a second namespace, can submit that continuation with a request naming the first namespace and receive the second namespace's workflow history, provided the supplied workflow identifier selects the same History shard as the continuation's branch. No workflow with the supplied identifier needs to exist. Because the token is unauthenticated, a holder can also advance its event range and clear its persistence cursor, which returns history events created after that caller's current credential no longer granted access to the continuation's namespace. Determining exposure is a version question rather than a configuration question: every release listed as affected omits the binding check on the forward history path, and on the reverse history path in releases from 1.16.0, which introduced GetWorkflowExecutionHistoryReverse; no setting in an affected release restores it, and affected releases emit no metric or log for the condition, so their telemetry provides no detection. Fixed releases add the check and, when a page token's branch token is not the requested execution's current branch token, record the counter pagination_token_branch_mismatch tagged with namespace and reason and write a History-service warning log reading "Pagination branch token is not the execution's current branch token" with the fields wf-namespace, wf-id, wf-run-id, reason, wf-branch-token, and wf-request-branch-token. Search History warning logs for that message, or for reason=foreign_branch, which denotes a branch token the requested execution never recorded and is not expected in normal operation; reason=non_current_branch denotes a retained but superseded branch of the same execution and can occur legitimately after conflict resolution or failover. A foreign_branch record does not by itself prove the read was refused, because the counter and log are emitted before the enforcement decision and therefore appear both when the check rejects the request and when history.enablePaginationTokenBranchValidationShadowMode is enabled and the read is served; confirm refusal from the gRPC response, which is InvalidArgument carrying a CurrentBranchChangedFailure detail. The metric and log are tagged with the requesting namespace, not the namespace whose history the token selects, so a foreign_branch alert does not name the exposed namespace. The issue does not provide unauthenticated access, construction of a usable continuation from public workflow identifiers, enumeration of workflows for which the caller holds no continuation, or any modification of workflow state. |
| The GemBooking WordPress plugin before 1.7.1 does not properly verify that a REST request is addressed to its own routes before temporarily granting staff users administrative capabilities, allowing users with the GemBooking WordPress plugin before 1.7.1's Staff role to delete arbitrary posts and update the site's settings. |
| SuperTokens Core is an open source authentication server. From 10.1.0 until 11.0.9, 11.1.4, 11.2.4, 11.3.8, 11.4.8, 12.0.11, 12.1.2, 12.2.1, and 12.3.1, loadOptionsById_Transaction and getUserInfoByCredentialId_Transaction perform application-scoped WebAuthn lookups without constraining them to the requested tenant, and WebAuthN.signIn does not verify tenant membership. In a multi-tenant deployment using WebAuthn with a shared user pool, an ordinary user who possesses their own valid passkey in one tenant can submit its assertion to another tenant's sign-in endpoint in the same application and be authenticated there despite having no membership in the target tenant. This issue is fixed in versions 11.0.9, 11.1.4, 11.2.4, 11.3.8, 11.4.8, 12.0.11, 12.1.2, 12.2.1, and 12.3.1. |
| Improper access control in Progress WS_FTP Server versions prior to 2025.0.5 could allow an authenticated user with certain folder-management permissions to bypass access restrictions and access or modify files belonging to other users. |
| SuperTokens Core is an open source authentication server. From 6.0.0 until 6.0.24, 7.0.23, 8.0.7, 9.0.6, 9.1.6, 9.2.7, 9.3.5, 10.0.8, 10.1.9, 11.0.9, 11.1.4, 11.2.4, 11.3.8, 11.4.8, 12.0.11, 12.1.2, 12.2.1, and 12.3.1, Multitenancy.checkPermissionsForCreateOrUpdate in src/main/java/io/supertokens/multitenancy/Multitenancy.java does not adequately authorize updates to a parent connection URI domain or the base tenant. In a licensed multi-tenant deployment with multiple applications under one non-default connection URI domain and separate api_keys, an attacker holding one application's valid API key can update the parent domain because the CUD-target branch checks the domain without requiring the source application and tenant to be public. Because api_keys is not protected, the attacker can replace the parent key and then sibling application keys, read or modify sibling users, obtain sessions as those users, establish persistence through a sibling dashboard user, and lock out the sibling application's own key. In the advisory's v2 create or update handlers, omitting the optional identifier produces a base-tenant target that skips the permission branches and enterprise-feature gate, allowing changes to firstFactors, required secondary factors, and recipe-enabled flags that affect login integrity and availability. The base-target variant still rejects coreConfig and does not establish key theft. This issue is fixed in versions 6.0.24, 7.0.23, 8.0.7, 9.0.6, 9.1.6, 9.2.7, 9.3.5, 10.0.8, 10.1.9, 11.0.9, 11.1.4, 11.2.4, 11.3.8, 11.4.8, 12.0.11, 12.1.2, 12.2.1, and 12.3.1. |
| An authorization bypass vulnerability exists in the API of HPE Networking Fabric Composer. Successful exploitation could allow an authenticated attacker to bypass security restrictions and modify protected resources on the affected system. |
| Incorrect authorization in the @authentication directive JWT where filter evaluation in Neo4j @neo4j/graphql versions 7.0.0 before 7.6.7 allows an attacker holding an otherwise-valid JWT to bypass all but the first filter condition via a multi-condition jwt where filter written in generic operator syntax. |
| The Post Duplicator WordPress plugin before 3.0.18 does not restrict settings saves to its own options, allowing a site administrator on a multisite network who is not a Super Admin to overwrite arbitrary options of their site, including the role definitions, and so grant themselves network-management capabilities. |
| Apache Airflow's API endpoint for deleting an asset's queued events checked Dag edit permission against the `dag_id` query parameter, but deleted the queued events of every Dag the caller could read. An authenticated user with edit permission on one Dag and read access to others could suppress asset-triggered runs of Dags they cannot edit. This is an incomplete fix for CVE-2026-75157: users who upgraded to apache-airflow 3.3.2 for that fix are still affected and should upgrade to apache-airflow 3.4.0 or later. |
| In server mode pgAdmin 4 locks an internal account after MAX_LOGIN_ATTEMPTS failed logins (3 by default). The limit could be bypassed, giving an unauthenticated attacker an unlimited number of password guesses against any internal account, including the administrator's, in the default configuration:
- Flask-Security registers its own views next to pgAdmin's. A login submitted to its /login view was checked and logged in without pgAdmin's failed login count or lock. Its /verify view checked a signed-in user's password without limit, its /change view changed a password without pgAdmin's change password permission or re-encrypting the user's saved server passwords, and its /reset views sent and applied password resets for accounts that are not internal or are locked.
- The internal account was looked up by its exact username, while the login form matches the email ignoring case, so a login with the username typed in another case was neither counted nor checked for the lock.
- With LDAP or webserver authentication also configured, a wrong internal password was never counted, and with Kerberos or webserver authentication configured a guess could be answered without being counted.
In addition, where accounts from different authentication sources share an email address, a password reset could be sent for, or applied to, an account from another source, and the About box showed the server configuration to a user whose email was that of an administrator's account.
The fix refuses submissions to Flask-Security's own views, counts every failed internal login however the username is typed and whatever other sources are configured, no longer lets a login that posts a password fall back to an authentication source that does not check it, and locks only internal authentication. Password resets and the About box act only on the user's own internal account. Desktop mode is not affected.
This issue affects pgAdmin 4: before 9.19. |
| A lack of tenant separation in SuperTokens Inc. SuperTokens Core v6.0.0 to v11.4.0 allows an authenticated party in one tenant to access sessions, data, and endpoints of another tenant. |
| OpenEMR before 8.4.0 contains an improper authorization vulnerability in the non-patient POST /fhir/DocumentReference/$docref route that allows low-privileged users to generate any patient's CCDA. Attackers with only demographics and documents permissions can supply a victim patient parameter, then download the full-chart CCDA from Patient Documents to exfiltrate clinical data. |
| OpenEMR before 8.4.0 contains an incorrect authorization vulnerability because the prescription REST API routes check the patients.med ACL instead of patients.rx and request no specific permission bit, so read-only Medical/History access passes the check. Authenticated staff users can reuse the UI-exposed APICSRFTOKEN to enumerate prescription UUIDs, forge prescriptions for arbitrary patients, and deactivate existing prescriptions tenant-wide. |
| OpenRemote before 1.32.2 contains an improper authorization vulnerability that allows realm administrators to access and modify global resources by calling admin endpoints lacking super administrator checks. Attackers can change the global keycloakUrl via /configuration/manager to redirect other realms' console authentication for credential phishing, inject CSS, replace map tiles, and delete logs. |
| IBM API Connect 12.1.0.0 through 12.1.1.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to bypass authorization checks to access or modify sensitive information due to improper authorization. |
| Vikunja from 2.2.0 before 2.7.1 contains an authorization bypass vulnerability that allows holders of tokens scoped only to projects_webhooks to manage the owner's user-level webhooks by supplying user_id in request bodies. Attackers can register user webhooks to their own receiver to obtain reminders and task payloads from all owner projects, and read, change or delete existing user webhooks. |
