Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-287

Discouraged

Improper Authentication

Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft

When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.

6877 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.

GHSA-RPJR-64PH-WQH3

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-24 21:32 – Updated: 2026-09-24 21:32
VLAI
Details

Dell Rugged Control Center (RCC), versions prior to 5.2.206, contain an Improper Authorization vulnerability. A low privileged attacker with local access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to Elevation of Privileges.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-81473"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-287"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-09-24T19:17:17Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Dell Rugged Control Center (RCC), versions prior to 5.2.206, contain an Improper Authorization vulnerability. A low privileged attacker with local access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to Elevation of Privileges.",
  "id": "GHSA-rpjr-64ph-wqh3",
  "modified": "2026-09-24T21:32:48Z",
  "published": "2026-09-24T21:32:48Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-81473"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000506924/dsa-2026-410-security-update-for-dell-rugged-control-center-rcc-multiple-vulnerabilities"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-RPJW-WQ4M-V5J8

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:16 – Updated: 2022-08-31 00:00
VLAI
Details

Login with hash: The login routine allows the client to log in to the system not by using the password, but by using the hash of the password. Combined with CVE-2021-23858, this allows an attacker to subsequently login to the system.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-23857"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-287"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-10-04T18:15:00Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "Login with hash: The login routine allows the client to log in to the system not by using the password, but by using the hash of the password. Combined with CVE-2021-23858, this allows an attacker to subsequently login to the system.",
  "id": "GHSA-rpjw-wq4m-v5j8",
  "modified": "2022-08-31T00:00:21Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T19:16:26Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-23857"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://psirt.bosch.com/security-advisories/bosch-sa-741752.html"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-RPPV-F6HG-5X77

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-08-16 00:00 – Updated: 2026-07-05 00:31
VLAI
Details

D-Link GO-RT-AC750 GORTAC750_revA_v101b03 & GO-RT-AC750_revB_FWv200b02 is vulnerable to Static Default Credentials via /etc/init0.d/S80telnetd.sh.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-36524"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-287",
      "CWE-522"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-08-15T17:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "D-Link GO-RT-AC750 GORTAC750_revA_v101b03 \u0026 GO-RT-AC750_revB_FWv200b02 is vulnerable to Static Default Credentials via /etc/init0.d/S80telnetd.sh.",
  "id": "GHSA-rppv-f6hg-5x77",
  "modified": "2026-07-05T00:31:35Z",
  "published": "2022-08-16T00:00:23Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-36524"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WNKrDUbYfSWbSve9ONILkLY6dbM8I7hh/view?usp=sharing"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.dlink.com/en/security-bulletin"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://d-link.com"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-RPQ2-3P69-P45W

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-07-13 00:00 – Updated: 2022-07-23 00:00
VLAI
Details

Due to missing authentication check, SAP Business one License service API - version 10.0 allows an unauthenticated attacker to send malicious http requests over the network. On successful exploitation, an attacker can break the whole application making it inaccessible.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-28771"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-287",
      "CWE-306"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-07-12T21:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Due to missing authentication check, SAP Business one License service API - version 10.0 allows an unauthenticated attacker to send malicious http requests over the network. On successful exploitation, an attacker can break the whole application making it inaccessible.",
  "id": "GHSA-rpq2-3p69-p45w",
  "modified": "2022-07-23T00:00:21Z",
  "published": "2022-07-13T00:00:41Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-28771"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://launchpad.support.sap.com/#/notes/3157613"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.sap.com/documents/2022/02/fa865ea4-167e-0010-bca6-c68f7e60039b.html"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-RPRH-2GF9-VFMV

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-08-26 00:03 – Updated: 2022-09-01 00:00
VLAI
Details

A flaw was found in Samba. The security vulnerability occurs when KDC and the kpasswd service share a single account and set of keys, allowing them to decrypt each other's tickets. A user who has been requested to change their password, can exploit this flaw to obtain and use tickets to other services.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-2031"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-287",
      "CWE-288"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-08-25T18:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "A flaw was found in Samba. The security vulnerability occurs when KDC and the kpasswd service share a single account and set of keys, allowing them to decrypt each other\u0027s tickets. A user who has been requested to change their password, can exploit this flaw to obtain and use tickets to other services.",
  "id": "GHSA-rprh-2gf9-vfmv",
  "modified": "2022-09-01T00:00:25Z",
  "published": "2022-08-26T00:03:30Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-2031"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202309-06"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.samba.org/samba/security/CVE-2022-2031.html"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-RQ2W-6955-5M7C

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-06 00:00 – Updated: 2022-05-14 00:01
VLAI
Details

An improper authentication vulnerability has been reported to affect QNAP device running Video Station. If exploited, this vulnerability allows attackers to compromise the security of the system. We have already fixed this vulnerability in the following versions of Video Station: Video Station 5.5.9 and later Video Station 5.3.13 and later Video Station 5.1.8 and later

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-44056"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-287"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-05-05T17:15:00Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "An improper authentication vulnerability has been reported to affect QNAP device running Video Station. If exploited, this vulnerability allows attackers to compromise the security of the system. We have already fixed this vulnerability in the following versions of Video Station: Video Station 5.5.9 and later Video Station 5.3.13 and later Video Station 5.1.8 and later",
  "id": "GHSA-rq2w-6955-5m7c",
  "modified": "2022-05-14T00:01:16Z",
  "published": "2022-05-06T00:00:42Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-44056"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.qnap.com/en/security-advisory/qsa-22-14"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-RQ35-F9G6-4534

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:12 – Updated: 2022-07-13 00:01
VLAI
Details

CyberArk Identity 21.5.131, when handling an invalid authentication attempt, sometimes reveals whether the username is valid. In certain authentication policy configurations with MFA, the API response length can be used to differentiate between a valid user and an invalid one (aka Username Enumeration). Response differentiation enables attackers to enumerate usernames of valid application users. Attackers can use this information to leverage brute-force and dictionary attacks in order to discover valid account information such as passwords.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-37151"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-287"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-09-01T13:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "CyberArk Identity 21.5.131, when handling an invalid authentication attempt, sometimes reveals whether the username is valid. In certain authentication policy configurations with MFA, the API response length can be used to differentiate between a valid user and an invalid one (aka Username Enumeration). Response differentiation enables attackers to enumerate usernames of valid application users. Attackers can use this information to leverage brute-force and dictionary attacks in order to discover valid account information such as passwords.",
  "id": "GHSA-rq35-f9g6-4534",
  "modified": "2022-07-13T00:01:33Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T19:12:49Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-37151"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.cyberark.com/products"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.gov.il/en/departments/faq/cve_advisories"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-RQ84-P6RR-VF89

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-04 19:52 – Updated: 2026-08-04 19:52
VLAI
Summary
Open WebUI: Account takeover via OAuth token exchange accepting tokens issued to any client
Details

Summary

The OAuth token exchange endpoint accepts a raw provider access token and validates it by calling the provider's userinfo endpoint. A userinfo endpoint reports only that a token is valid, never which OAuth client it was issued to, and the endpoint performed no audience or client check of its own. Anyone holding an access token minted for any client registered with the same provider could exchange it for an Open WebUI session as that token's user, including applications the operator does not control and has never authorised.

Preconditions

  • ENABLE_OAUTH_TOKEN_EXCHANGE=True. Disabled by default, so a stock deployment is not affected.
  • The victim already has an Open WebUI account. The endpoint does not create users.
  • The attacker can obtain a provider access token for the victim, typically by having them sign in to an unrelated OAuth application on the same provider. On public providers, registering that application is self-service.
  • The subject identifier the attacker's client observes matches the one stored on the victim's account. Google, GitHub, Okta and self-hosted OIDC servers in default configuration issue a subject that is stable across all clients and are directly affected. Microsoft Entra ID issues per-application subjects, so the match fails there unless OAUTH_MERGE_ACCOUNTS_BY_EMAIL is enabled or OAUTH_SUB_CLAIM points at a globally stable claim such as oid.
  • OAUTH_ALLOWED_DOMAINS is enforced on this endpoint but does not constrain the attack, because the impersonated user is a legitimate member of an allowed domain.

Impact

Full account takeover of any user whose provider access token the attacker can obtain. The endpoint applies no role gating, so the issued session carries the target account's role, and a targeted administrator yields an administrator session. The victim never interacts with Open WebUI and has no opportunity to notice.

The standard OAuth callback is not affected. It obtains its token through an authorization-code exchange authenticated with the client secret, so the token is inherently bound to Open WebUI's own client, and the ID token's audience is validated.

Fix

Fixed in 0.11.0. The endpoint now resolves which OAuth client a presented token was issued to through RFC 7662 token introspection, and rejects tokens minted for any client not named in OAUTH_TOKEN_EXCHANGE_TRUSTED_CLIENT_IDS. Only the introspected client_id is honoured; the aud field is ignored, because it names intended resource servers rather than the issuing client and several providers let any client place another client's identifier there.

Upgrading alone is not sufficient. The check is opt-in: with OAUTH_TOKEN_EXCHANGE_TRUSTED_CLIENT_IDS unset the endpoint behaves as it did before, so any deployment running with ENABLE_OAUTH_TOKEN_EXCHANGE=True must also set that list. It is a deploy-time environment variable and cannot be changed from the admin interface, so a compromised administrator session cannot widen the trust boundary at runtime.

Providers that do not implement RFC 7662 introspection, including Google, Microsoft Entra ID, GitHub and Feishu, cannot be restricted this way at all. On those, token exchange has no safe configuration and should be left disabled.

Root cause

  • backend/open_webui/routers/auths.py, token_exchange (POST /api/v1/auths/oauth/{provider}/token/exchange)

Token exchange skips the authorization-code step entirely and trusts a token supplied by the caller. The only validation performed was a userinfo lookup, which answers whether a token is valid rather than who issued it, so the endpoint had no way to distinguish a token minted for Open WebUI from one minted for an unrelated application.

Proof of concept

Reproduced against a mock OIDC provider serving two tokens for the same end user, minted for two different clients, with OAUTH_ALLOWED_DOMAINS=corp.example actively enforced.

Case Token Result
Control not recognised by the provider 400 rejected
Outsider's own account, non-allowed domain minted for attacker-evil-app 403 blocked by domain allowlist
Victim's account, foreign client minted for attacker-evil-app 200, session issued for victim@corp.example

The issued session token was confirmed usable: GET /api/v1/auths/ returned 200 authenticated as the victim. The provider log recorded the token as minted for client_id='attacker-evil-app', while Open WebUI's own client is openwebui-client-id.

Credits

Reported by @Classic298.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "open-webui"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0.8.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.11.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-70482"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-287"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-08-04T19:52:01Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "## Summary\n\nThe OAuth token exchange endpoint accepts a raw provider access token and validates it by calling the provider\u0027s userinfo endpoint. A userinfo endpoint reports only that a token is valid, never which OAuth client it was issued to, and the endpoint performed no audience or client check of its own. Anyone holding an access token minted for any client registered with the same provider could exchange it for an Open WebUI session as that token\u0027s user, including applications the operator does not control and has never authorised.\n\n## Preconditions\n\n- `ENABLE_OAUTH_TOKEN_EXCHANGE=True`. Disabled by default, so a stock deployment is not affected.\n- The victim already has an Open WebUI account. The endpoint does not create users.\n- The attacker can obtain a provider access token for the victim, typically by having them sign in to an unrelated OAuth application on the same provider. On public providers, registering that application is self-service.\n- The subject identifier the attacker\u0027s client observes matches the one stored on the victim\u0027s account. Google, GitHub, Okta and self-hosted OIDC servers in default configuration issue a subject that is stable across all clients and are directly affected. Microsoft Entra ID issues per-application subjects, so the match fails there unless `OAUTH_MERGE_ACCOUNTS_BY_EMAIL` is enabled or `OAUTH_SUB_CLAIM` points at a globally stable claim such as `oid`.\n- `OAUTH_ALLOWED_DOMAINS` is enforced on this endpoint but does not constrain the attack, because the impersonated user is a legitimate member of an allowed domain.\n\n## Impact\n\nFull account takeover of any user whose provider access token the attacker can obtain. The endpoint applies no role gating, so the issued session carries the target account\u0027s role, and a targeted administrator yields an administrator session. The victim never interacts with Open WebUI and has no opportunity to notice.\n\nThe standard OAuth callback is not affected. It obtains its token through an authorization-code exchange authenticated with the client secret, so the token is inherently bound to Open WebUI\u0027s own client, and the ID token\u0027s audience is validated.\n\n## Fix\n\nFixed in 0.11.0. The endpoint now resolves which OAuth client a presented token was issued to through RFC 7662 token introspection, and rejects tokens minted for any client not named in `OAUTH_TOKEN_EXCHANGE_TRUSTED_CLIENT_IDS`. Only the introspected `client_id` is honoured; the `aud` field is ignored, because it names intended resource servers rather than the issuing client and several providers let any client place another client\u0027s identifier there.\n\n**Upgrading alone is not sufficient.** The check is opt-in: with `OAUTH_TOKEN_EXCHANGE_TRUSTED_CLIENT_IDS` unset the endpoint behaves as it did before, so any deployment running with `ENABLE_OAUTH_TOKEN_EXCHANGE=True` must also set that list. It is a deploy-time environment variable and cannot be changed from the admin interface, so a compromised administrator session cannot widen the trust boundary at runtime.\n\nProviders that do not implement RFC 7662 introspection, including Google, Microsoft Entra ID, GitHub and Feishu, cannot be restricted this way at all. **On those, token exchange has no safe configuration and should be left disabled.**\n\n## Root cause\n\n- `backend/open_webui/routers/auths.py`, `token_exchange` (`POST /api/v1/auths/oauth/{provider}/token/exchange`)\n\nToken exchange skips the authorization-code step entirely and trusts a token supplied by the caller. The only validation performed was a userinfo lookup, which answers whether a token is valid rather than who issued it, so the endpoint had no way to distinguish a token minted for Open WebUI from one minted for an unrelated application.\n\n## Proof of concept\n\nReproduced against a mock OIDC provider serving two tokens for the same end user, minted for two different clients, with `OAUTH_ALLOWED_DOMAINS=corp.example` actively enforced.\n\n| Case | Token | Result |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Control | not recognised by the provider | 400 rejected |\n| Outsider\u0027s own account, non-allowed domain | minted for `attacker-evil-app` | 403 blocked by domain allowlist |\n| Victim\u0027s account, foreign client | minted for `attacker-evil-app` | 200, session issued for `victim@corp.example` |\n\nThe issued session token was confirmed usable: `GET /api/v1/auths/` returned 200 authenticated as the victim. The provider log recorded the token as minted for `client_id=\u0027attacker-evil-app\u0027`, while Open WebUI\u0027s own client is `openwebui-client-id`.\n\n## Credits\n\nReported by @Classic298.",
  "id": "GHSA-rq84-p6rr-vf89",
  "modified": "2026-08-04T19:52:01Z",
  "published": "2026-08-04T19:52:01Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/security/advisories/GHSA-rq84-p6rr-vf89"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/commit/b190dcf3caa00dc8b7b9c7312828298d9143f60d"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/commit/c4332be71e6e9c314e8a13b9d2819a6932561630"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/releases/tag/v0.11.0"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Open WebUI: Account takeover via OAuth token exchange accepting tokens issued to any client"
}

GHSA-RQ95-XF66-J689

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-01-31 23:22 – Updated: 2024-01-31 23:22
VLAI
Summary
Improper Authentication in HashiCorp Vault
Details

HashiCorp Vault Enterprise 1.6.0 & 1.6.1 allowed the remove-peer raft operator command to be executed against DR secondaries without authentication. Fixed in 1.6.2.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Go",
        "name": "github.com/hashicorp/vault"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "1.6.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.6.2"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-3282"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-287"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2024-01-31T23:22:08Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-02-01T16:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "HashiCorp Vault Enterprise 1.6.0 \u0026 1.6.1 allowed the `remove-peer` raft operator command to be executed against DR secondaries without authentication. Fixed in 1.6.2.",
  "id": "GHSA-rq95-xf66-j689",
  "modified": "2024-01-31T23:22:08Z",
  "published": "2024-01-31T23:22:08Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-3282"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/hashicorp/vault/commit/09f9068e22f762da123160233518b440e00bdb3b"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://discuss.hashicorp.com/t/hcsec-2021-04-vault-enterprise-s-dr-secondaries-allowed-raft-peer-removal-without-authentication/20337"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202207-01"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Improper Authentication in HashiCorp Vault"
}

GHSA-RQC2-5FV7-4VRP

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-25 18:31 – Updated: 2026-02-25 18:31
VLAI
Details

A flaw has been found in Chia Blockchain 2.1.0. The affected element is the function send_transaction/get_private_key of the component RPC Server Master Passphrase Handler. This manipulation causes missing authentication. The attack can only be executed locally. The attack's complexity is rated as high. The exploitability is described as difficult. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was informed early via email. A separate report via bugbounty was rejected with the reason "This is by design. The user is responsible for host security".

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-3194"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-287",
      "CWE-306"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-02-25T18:23:42Z",
    "severity": "LOW"
  },
  "details": "A flaw has been found in Chia Blockchain 2.1.0. The affected element is the function send_transaction/get_private_key of the component RPC Server Master Passphrase Handler. This manipulation causes missing authentication. The attack can only be executed locally. The attack\u0027s complexity is rated as high. The exploitability is described as difficult. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was informed early via email. A separate report via bugbounty was rejected with the reason \"This is by design. The user is responsible for host security\".",
  "id": "GHSA-rqc2-5fv7-4vrp",
  "modified": "2026-02-25T18:31:39Z",
  "published": "2026-02-25T18:31:38Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-3194"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/Danimlzg/chia-rpc-auth-bypass.git"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.347750"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.347750"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.757201"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ]
}

Mitigation
Architecture and Design

Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks

Use an authentication framework or library such as the OWASP ESAPI Authentication feature.

CAPEC-114: Authentication Abuse

An attacker obtains unauthorized access to an application, service or device either through knowledge of the inherent weaknesses of an authentication mechanism, or by exploiting a flaw in the authentication scheme's implementation. In such an attack an authentication mechanism is functioning but a carefully controlled sequence of events causes the mechanism to grant access to the attacker.

CAPEC-115: Authentication Bypass

An attacker gains access to application, service, or device with the privileges of an authorized or privileged user by evading or circumventing an authentication mechanism. The attacker is therefore able to access protected data without authentication ever having taken place.

CAPEC-151: Identity Spoofing

Identity Spoofing refers to the action of assuming (i.e., taking on) the identity of some other entity (human or non-human) and then using that identity to accomplish a goal. An adversary may craft messages that appear to come from a different principle or use stolen / spoofed authentication credentials.

CAPEC-194: Fake the Source of Data

An adversary takes advantage of improper authentication to provide data or services under a falsified identity. The purpose of using the falsified identity may be to prevent traceability of the provided data or to assume the rights granted to another individual. One of the simplest forms of this attack would be the creation of an email message with a modified "From" field in order to appear that the message was sent from someone other than the actual sender. The root of the attack (in this case the email system) fails to properly authenticate the source and this results in the reader incorrectly performing the instructed action. Results of the attack vary depending on the details of the attack, but common results include privilege escalation, obfuscation of other attacks, and data corruption/manipulation.

CAPEC-22: Exploiting Trust in Client

An attack of this type exploits vulnerabilities in client/server communication channel authentication and data integrity. It leverages the implicit trust a server places in the client, or more importantly, that which the server believes is the client. An attacker executes this type of attack by communicating directly with the server where the server believes it is communicating only with a valid client. There are numerous variations of this type of attack.

CAPEC-57: Utilizing REST's Trust in the System Resource to Obtain Sensitive Data

This attack utilizes a REST(REpresentational State Transfer)-style applications' trust in the system resources and environment to obtain sensitive data once SSL is terminated.

CAPEC-593: Session Hijacking

This type of attack involves an adversary that exploits weaknesses in an application's use of sessions in performing authentication. The adversary is able to steal or manipulate an active session and use it to gain unathorized access to the application.

CAPEC-633: Token Impersonation

An adversary exploits a weakness in authentication to create an access token (or equivalent) that impersonates a different entity, and then associates a process/thread to that that impersonated token. This action causes a downstream user to make a decision or take action that is based on the assumed identity, and not the response that blocks the adversary.

CAPEC-650: Upload a Web Shell to a Web Server

By exploiting insufficient permissions, it is possible to upload a web shell to a web server in such a way that it can be executed remotely. This shell can have various capabilities, thereby acting as a "gateway" to the underlying web server. The shell might execute at the higher permission level of the web server, providing the ability the execute malicious code at elevated levels.

CAPEC-94: Adversary in the Middle (AiTM)

An adversary targets the communication between two components (typically client and server), in order to alter or obtain data from transactions. A general approach entails the adversary placing themself within the communication channel between the two components.