Base de CVEs

Insufficient granularity of access control in Windows Mobile Device Management allows an authorized attacker to perform tampering locally.

GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 18.11 before 19.2.8, 19.3 before 19.3.5, and 19.4 before 19.4.2 that, under certain conditions, could have allowed an authenticated user with a project-scoped fine-grained Personal Access Token to permanently delete or modify group-level labels, due to incorrect authorization logic on label ownership scope validation.

Ash field_policies are documented to protect against filter-based information disclosure: when a field the actor may not see is referenced in a filter, it is replaced with an expression that evaluates to nil, so a filter cannot be used as a yes/no oracle to read a value the actor cannot see. This nilling was applied to attributes but not to calculations or aggregates. A user-supplied filter reference to a calculation or aggregate carries an Ash.Query.Calculation / Ash.Query.Aggregate struct, which the authorizer's reference replacement did not match (it only matched the Ash.Resource.* structs), so the filter ran against the real value. As a result, an actor whose field policies forbid a calculation or aggregate can still filter by it (for example filter(secret_calc == "x") or filter(comment_count == n)) and learn the value from whether rows match — an oracle that recovers field-policy-protected values one probe at a time. Filtering is commonly exposed to lower-privileged actors (for example via AshGraphql or AshJsonApi filter arguments), which is exactly the surface field policies are meant to protect. The fix routes filter references to calculations and aggregates through the same field-policy nilling as attributes. This issue affects ash: from 2.11.0-rc.0 before 3.33.4.

Insufficient granularity of access control in Windows Connected User Experiences and Telemetry allows an authorized attacker to disclose information locally.

AshAi exposes Ash read actions to language-model tool calls. The read tool accepts an aggregate result type (min, max, sum, avg) that builds an ad-hoc Ash.Query.Aggregate over a named field and returns its raw value. Ash field policies redact forbidden fields on returned records (replacing them with %Ash.ForbiddenField{}), but that redaction does not apply to aggregate values. A tool caller could therefore read a field the calling actor's field policies forbid by requesting it as an aggregate; min/max in particular return an actual field value. This includes fields that are public? true but restricted per-actor by a field policy, such as sensitive PII. The tool's existing check only required the field to be public, which is a separate axis from per-actor field-policy authorization. The fix authorizes the aggregated field against the resource's field policies, so aggregating over a field the actor may not see is refused or scoped to the rows where it is visible. This issue affects ash_ai: from 0.1.0 before 1.0.3.

AshLua exposes Ash read actions to Lua scripts run through an eval action. A read call accepts an operation (list, min, max, first, sum, avg) that builds an ad-hoc Ash.Query.Aggregate over a named field and returns its raw value. Ash field policies redact forbidden fields on returned records (replacing them with %Ash.ForbiddenField{}), but that redaction does not apply to aggregate values. A script could therefore read a field the calling actor's field policies forbid by requesting it as an aggregate instead of as a field. This includes fields that are public? true but restricted per-actor by a field policy, such as sensitive PII. The prior hardening only enforced the exposed-field allow-list (field visibility), which is a separate axis from per-actor field-policy authorization. The fix authorizes the aggregated field against the resource's field policies, so aggregating over a field the actor may not see is refused or scoped to the rows where it is visible. This issue affects ash_lua: from 0.1.0 before 0.2.2.

The Google Cloud Secret Manager secrets backend in Apache Airflow's Google provider never applied the team scope when resolving Connections and Variables: the caller's `team_name` was accepted by the backend but dropped at the internal call boundary, so every lookup resolved against the team-agnostic secret name. In a deployment running multi-team mode with this backend, a task or Dag belonging to one team resolved another team's Connection or Variable, obtaining its credentials in full. No unusual configuration is required beyond enabling multi-team mode and using this backend. Users are advised to upgrade to apache-airflow-providers-google 22.3.0 or later, which builds and applies the team-scoped secret name.

Insufficient granularity of access control in some subsystem for some Intel(R) Xeon(R) 6 Scalable processors with Intel(R) TDX may allow an information disclosure. Authorized adversary with an authenticated user combined with a high complexity attack may enable data exposure. This result may potentially occur via local access when attack requirements are present with special internal knowledge and requires no user interaction. The potential vulnerability may impact the confidentiality (none), integrity (none) and availability (none) of the vulnerable system, resulting in subsequent system confidentiality (high), integrity (none) and availability (none) impacts.

A heap-buffer-overflow flaw was found in Directory Server (389-ds-base). When a DN contains a legacy-quoted value, the server won't close the heap allocation allowing another call to refer to the same memory pointer causing a denial of service or an arbitrary memory write operation.

A flaw was found in the default-groups REST endpoint and realm representation of Keycloak. This component is responsible for managing groups that are automatically assigned to new users within a realm. The issue allows a delegated administrator with realm-viewing permissions to see the names and identifiers of hidden default groups, even if they lack the specific permissions to view those groups. This can lead to the exposure of sensitive organizational structures or internal group names.

A flaw was found in the admin REST API of Keycloak, a solution for identity and access management. The issue occurs when a delegated administrator attempts to remove a child role from a composite role. Due to missing authorization checks, an attacker with limited administrative permissions can remove privileged roles they are not authorized to manage, leading to a loss of access for other users and administrators.