<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
    <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org</link>
    <description>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</description>
    <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
    <generator>python-feedgen</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 18 Oct 2026 08:52:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2025-64746 — Directus has Improper Permission Handling on Deleted Fields</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/cve-2025-64746</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; directus&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Directus is a real-time API and App dashboard for managing SQL database content. Prior to version 11.13.0, Directus does not properly clean up field-level permissions when a field is deleted. When a field is removed from a collection, its reference in the permissions table remains intact. This stale reference creates a security gap: if another field is later created using the same name, it inherits the outdated permission entry. This behavior can unintentionally grant roles access to data they should not be able to read or modify. The issue is particularly risky in multi-tenant or production environments, where administrators may reuse field names, assuming old permissions have been fully cleared. Version 11.13.0 fixes the issue.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; directus&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Directus is a real-time API and App dashboard for managing SQL database content. Prior to version 11.13.0, Directus does not properly clean up field-level permissions when a field is deleted. When a field is removed from a collection, its reference in the permissions table remains intact. This stale reference creates a security gap: if another field is later created using the same name, it inherits the outdated permission entry. This behavior can unintentionally grant roles access to data they should not be able to read or modify. The issue is particularly risky in multi-tenant or production environments, where administrators may reuse field names, assuming old permissions have been fully cleared. Version 11.13.0 fixes the issue.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/cve-2025-64746</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
