Base de CVEs

Lychee is a free, open-source photo-management tool. Prior to 7.6.3, GET /api/v2/Zip authorizes album and photo archives through AlbumPolicy::canDownload() and PhotoPolicy::canDownload() without first enforcing AlbumPolicy::canAccess(). For a public, password-protected album with grants_download enabled, an unauthenticated attacker who knows the shared album identifier can download a ZIP archive without supplying the password or unlocking the album, even though browsing endpoints deny access. The archive exposes the album's photos and can include full-resolution originals and associated metadata when grants_full_photo_access is enabled. This issue is fixed in version 7.6.3.

InvoiceShelf is an open-source web & mobile app that helps track expenses, payments and create professional invoices and estimates. Prior to version 2.4.0, InvoiceShelf public customer invoice, estimate, and payment routes use an EmailLog token's numeric mailable_id without verifying mailable_type, and the JSON handlers do not enforce EmailLog::isExpired. A token issued for one document type can therefore disclose a different company's document when numeric identifiers collide, and an expired token can remain usable on the JSON routes GET /customer/invoices/{email_log:token}, GET /customer/estimates/{email_log:token}, and GET /customer/payments/{email_log:token}. View handlers can also mark a mismatched invoice or estimate as viewed and send a notification. This issue is fixed in version 2.4.0.

Insufficient granularity of access control in Windows StateRepository API allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges locally.

A vulnerability was determined in AdithyaYelloju Restaurant-Management-System up to 7f0e7e84255e8fcfd488e83f8f91451bbbff6b9c. Impacted is the function mysqli_query of the component Order Management. Executing a manipulation of the argument ID can lead to authorization bypass. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

IBM Planning Analytics 2.0, and 2.1 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to delete folders and applications belonging to other users due to improper functional level access control.

Nginx UI is a web user interface for the Nginx web server. Prior to 2.4.1, the POST /api/users/:id user-management endpoint permits an authenticated user to change another user's password without passing RequireSecureSession, even though the self-service password-change path requires that step-up. An attacker with an authenticated account can change the initial administrator's password, invalidate existing administrator tokens, and then authenticate as the administrator. This issue is fixed in version 2.4.1.

IBM Security Verify Access 10.0 through 10.0.9.2 and IBM Verify Identity Access 11.0 through 11.0.3 may not enforce authorization correctly for some web servers.

IBM DataPower Gateway 10.5.0.0 through 10.5.0.22, 10.6.1 through 10.6.6, 10.6.0.0 through 10.6.0.10, and 11.0.0.0 through 11.0.0.2 could allow a remote attacker to bypass security restrictions due to improper authorization.

Gitea Actions blocks the jobs of workflow runs from first-time fork pull request contributors until a maintainer approves the run. The rerun path only required a run to be finished and built the new attempt's jobs without considering the pending approval, so when a user with Actions write access cancelled a run that was awaiting approval and then re-ran it, the new jobs were created as waiting rather than blocked while the run still recorded that approval was required. Cancelling and re-running stale fork checks is a routine action that does not involve the approval control, so where Actions is enabled and a matching runner is registered, workflow code taken from the fork pull request head could run on the repository's runners without an explicit approval.

In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the high-level OpenPGP certificate API accepted a third-party certification or trust delegation from any component key of the issuing certificate, without requiring that component to have been granted the authority to certify. OpenPGPCertificate.getCertificationBy() and getDelegationBy() resolve a third-party signature by matching its issuer key identifier against every key of the third-party certificate, then verify the issuing component's binding chain and the signature itself; nothing checked that the issuing component carried the RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.3.29 certification key flag (CERTIFY_OTHER) when the signature was created. A subkey bound only with SIGN_DATA - the online signing subkey of exactly the offline-primary arrangement those key flags exist to express - could therefore issue a positive User ID certification over an attacker-controlled identity, or a full-trust depth-one direct-key delegation of introducer trust, and the API returned it as a valid signature chain attributed to the third-party certificate. An application treating getCertificationBy(...).isValid() or getDelegationBy(...) as an identity or trusted-introducer decision would attribute the attacker's assertion to the offline primary key. The same held for a legacy RSA subkey bound only for encryption, whose algorithm is nonetheless able to sign. This does not forge the primary key's signature or recover any private key; it promotes an already-compromised restricted subkey to the primary key's identity-issuing authority, defeating the containment the key-flag separation provides. A third-party certification or delegation is now attributed to the issuing certificate only when the component key that made it is the primary key, or is a subkey holding CERTIFY_OTHER when the signature was created, so certification-capable subkeys continue to be accepted; primary keys are accepted whatever their key flags say, since a primary key is certification-capable by construction and certificates carrying no key flags subpacket at all are common. Third-party revocations are deliberately outside the rule, since declining to honour one would keep trust alive rather than withdraw it.