| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Incorrect authorization in Editing in Google Chrome prior to 152.0.7977.65 allowed a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium) |
| Incorrect authorization in WebProtect in Google Chrome prior to 152.0.7977.65 allowed a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium) |
| Fleet is an open-source device management platform built on osquery. In versions prior to 4.85.0, the global policy read endpoint (GET /api/latest/fleet/policies/{policy_id}) fails to verify team ownership of the requested policy, allowing an authenticated user with observer-level access on any single team to read the full details of policies belonging to any other team and bypass Fleet's team isolation model. The handler authorizes the request against an empty policy object whose TeamID is nil, which an authorization rule permits for any user holding a role on any team, and then fetches the policy by ID with no team filter and returns it without any post-fetch scope check. Because policy IDs are sequential integers, an attacker can enumerate them to read other teams' policy SQL queries, host pass and fail counts, and associated software-installer and script metadata, exposing security-monitoring strategies and compliance posture across team boundaries. This issue is fixed in version 4.85.0. |
| Incorrect Authorization vulnerability in Drupal Webform REST allows Forceful Browsing. This issue affects Webform REST versions: from 0.0.0 to 4.1.0. |
| Incus is a system container and virtual machine manager. Prior to version 7.3.0, project-level enforcement of `restricted.containers.privilege=isolated` can be trivially bypassed, allowing a user to create a non-isolated (shared host idmap) container in a project that is configured to forbid them. The restriction only rejects an explicitly set `security.idmap.isolated=false` (or empty) and fails to enforce anything when the key is omitted entirely. Because an unset `security.idmap.isolated` defaults to `false` (non-isolation), a user simply leaves the key out and obtains exactly the container state the restriction is meant to forbid. This defeats the tenant-isolation guarantee the restriction exists to provide. Containers in the project share the host uid/gid map instead of receiving unique, non-overlapping ranges, weakening the isolation boundary between co-tenant containers and the host. Version 7.3.0 patches the issue. |
| Ech0 before 4.4.3 protects the PUT /user endpoint with the profile:read scope, a read-only scope, but allows write operations including password changes. An attacker with an admin's profile:read access token can change the admin's password and login to obtain an unrestricted session token that bypasses all scope enforcement. |
| Dolibarr before 24.0.0 contains an improper authorization vulnerability in the payments REST API delete endpoint that allows authenticated attackers with invoice-deletion rights to permanently delete any payment record by bypassing the intended payment-issuance rights check. Attackers can exploit this misconfigured permission check to zero paid amounts on invoices and remove entries from accounting exports, causing financial data integrity loss. |
| In Splunk AI Toolkit versions below 6.0.0, a user who does not hold the "admin" or "power" Splunk roles could run searches with system-level privileges, access all relevant data, affect system integrity, and read or delete search jobs belonging to other users through Agent Run History. The improper privilege management is possible because the Agent Run History handler replaces the calling user session key with a system authentication token before it performs search operations. For more information see AI Toolkit Agent Launchpad (https://help.splunk.com/en/splunk-enterprise/apply-machine-learning/use-ai-toolkit/6.0.0/ai-toolkit-connections-containers-and-agents/ai-toolkit-agent-launchpad) in the Splunk documentation. |
| In Splunk Enterprise versions below 10.4.2, 10.2.6, 10.0.9, and 9.4.14, a user who holds the "power" Splunk role could store risky Search Processing Language (SPL) commands in a Table Editor dataset and share the dataset. A user who holds the "admin" Splunk role triggers the commands when that user opens the dataset in the Table Editor. The commands run using the permissions of the second user and could expose all relevant data and modify lookup files. The vulnerability is possible because the Table Editor does not apply SPL safeguards for risky commands to the field-summary search that it runs for the Initial Data step. The vulnerability requires the attacker to phish the affected user by tricking them into initiating a request within their browser. The user who holds the "power" Splunk role should not be able to exploit the vulnerability at will. For more information see SPL safeguards for risky commands (https://help.splunk.com/en/splunk-enterprise/administer/manage-users-and-security/10.2/best-practices-for-splunk-platform-security/spl-safeguards-for-risky-commands) and Define roles on the Splunk platform with capabilities (https://help.splunk.com/en/splunk-enterprise/administer/manage-users-and-security/10.2/manage-splunk-platform-users-and-roles/define-roles-on-the-splunk-platform-with-capabilities) in the Splunk documentation. |
| In Splunk Enterprise versions below 10.4.2, 10.2.6, 10.0.9, and 9.4.14, a user who holds the "power" Splunk role could store attacker-controlled Search Processing Language (SPL) in a Table Editor dataset and share the dataset. A user who holds the "admin" Splunk role triggers the SPL when that user opens the dataset in the Table Editor. The SPL runs using the permissions of the second user and could expose all relevant data and modify limited data on the search head. The vulnerability is possible because the Table Editor does not apply SPL safeguards for risky commands when it prepares the dataset initial data. The vulnerability requires the attacker to phish the affected user by tricking them into initiating a request within their browser. The user who holds the "power" Splunk role should not be able to exploit the vulnerability at will. For more information see Define initial data for a new table dataset (https://help.splunk.com/en/splunk-enterprise/manage-knowledge-objects/knowledge-management-manual/9.4/create-and-edit-table-datasets/define-initial-data-for-a-new-table-dataset), SPL safeguards for risky commands (https://help.splunk.com/en/splunk-enterprise/administer/manage-users-and-security/10.2/best-practices-for-splunk-platform-security/spl-safeguards-for-risky-commands), and Define roles on the Splunk platform with capabilities (https://help.splunk.com/en/splunk-enterprise/administer/manage-users-and-security/10.4/manage-splunk-platform-users-and-roles/define-roles-on-the-splunk-platform-with-capabilities) in the Splunk documentation. |
| In OpenStack Keystone before 29.0.3, tokens obtained via OAuth1 access token, application credential, or trust-scoped authentication could create new long-lived credentials or authorize new delegations that persist independently of, and outlive, the credential used to obtain them. The delegation restrictions that block these operations did not consistently apply to all delegated token types, allowing an OAuth1-scoped token, for example, to create application credentials or authorize OAuth1 request tokens despite those operations being restricted for other delegated token types. All Keystone deployments that permit delegated authentication through OAuth1 access tokens, application credentials, or trusts are affected. |
| In OpenStack Keystone before 29.0.3, tokens obtained via delegated authentication mechanisms (OAuth1 access tokens, application credentials, trusts) could be submitted to the token-method authentication path for reauthentication to escape their intended project scope. When an application credential token was presented with no explicit scope, Keystone would issue a new token scoped to the credential owner's default project rather than the project for which the credential was issued, bypassing the intended project boundary. All Keystone deployments that permit delegated authentication through OAuth1 access tokens, application credentials, or trusts are affected. |
| IBM OPENBMC FW1110.00 through FW1110.20, and FW1060.00 through FW1060.71 allows ReadOnly users to escalate privileges and give themselves administrator privileges. |
| Incorrect authorization in frozen BI aggregations in Checkmk <2.5.0p2, <2.4.0p29, <2.3.0p47, and all 2.2.0 versions allows an authenticated user with restricted host and service visibility to learn the names and the existence of hosts and services they are not authorized to see. |
| Kimai before 2.56.0 does not enforce team-membership checks in TimesheetVoter::voteOnAttribute(), which maps permissions only to own_timesheet or other_timesheet. As a result, any authenticated user with ROLE_TEAMLEAD (or a role holding edit_other_timesheet/delete_other_timesheet) can read, modify, and permanently delete timesheets belonging to any user system-wide via the API, regardless of team membership. Timesheet IDs are sequential integers and trivially enumerable. ROLE_USER accounts are correctly restricted. (Note: the maintainers characterize this behavior as matching the documented permission model.) |
| No description is available for this CVE. |
| No description is available for this CVE. |
| The Grav API plugin (getgrav/grav-plugin-api) before 1.0.18 does not apply the API-key scope cap in the injectSecurityTab() function of BlueprintController when deciding whether a page's security/permissions blueprint section is editable. Because the function performs raw isSuperAdmin()/hasPermission() checks without a request parameter, it cannot enforce scopeAllows(). A caller holding a scoped API key may therefore see (and potentially edit) page permission fields beyond the scope granted to the key. The end-to-end write-time impact was not fully confirmed by the reporter. |
| A flaw was found in OpenStack Keystone where delegation boundary enforcement is incomplete across trust, application credential, and OAuth1 authorization endpoints. Tokens obtained via delegated authentication methods, such as OAuth1 access tokens or custom Keystone authentication plugins, can perform operations beyond their intended scope because endpoint guards only recognized specific delegation types rather than using a comprehensive allowlist. This allows creating trusts that delegate roles beyond the token's authorized scope, creating persistent application credentials, and authorizing new OAuth1 delegations. These derived credentials persist independently and survive revocation of the original credential, enabling an attacker with a compromised narrow-scope credential to escalate to the user's full privileges and maintain persistent access. |
| IBM Power Systems Firmware FW1120.00, FW1110.00 through FW1110.30, FW1060.00 through FW1060.80, FW950.00 through FW950.H2, OP940.00 through OP940.a1 (Power9), and OP940.00 - OP940.81 (Power HMC) is affected by a vulnerability in the interface between the BMC/FSP and the host system. An attacker with service account or root access to the BMC/FSP can write arbitrary data to hardware control registers, allowing full control over the host system and all hosted partitions, resulting in a confidentiality, integrity, and availability impact. |
