| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| A Missing Authorization vulnerability in the QueryEngineTask of Google Cloud Application Integration (versions from 2025-04-28 to 2026-04-04) allows an external attacker to access sensitive internal data.
The issue was patched on April 4, 2026; no customer action is required. |
| 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. |
| Combodo iTop is a web based IT service management tool. Prior to 3.2.3, users can access to unauthorized object information through the search operation. This issue has been fixed in version 3.2.3. |
| The Royal Addons for Elementor WordPress plugin before 1.7.1066 does not perform any capability or nonce check before returning taxonomy term data for an arbitrary, caller-supplied taxonomy, allowing unauthenticated users to disclose the names and IDs of terms belonging to non-public taxonomies. |
| The WPCafe WordPress plugin before 3.0.18 does not perform an authorization check when creating a reservation through its REST API, verifying only a publicly available nonce, allowing unauthenticated users to submit reservations with an arbitrary approval status and bypass the administrator moderation workflow. |
| The Eventin WordPress plugin before 4.1.19 does not properly restrict which changes a guest checkout token is allowed to authorise on an order, allowing unauthenticated users to mark their own unpaid order as completed and be issued a valid paid ticket with no payment taken. |
| 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. |
| act starts an HTTP Artifacts V4 backend whenever a workflow uses actions/upload-artifact@v4 or actions/download-artifact@v4. The control-plane RPCs of that backend, including CreateArtifact, GetSignedArtifactURL, ListArtifacts, FinalizeArtifact and DeleteArtifact, accept a caller-supplied workflow_run_backend_id and never check that it belongs to the requester: validateRunIDV4 in pkg/artifacts/artifacts_v4.go parses the value and returns it with the comparison against the requesting task's run ID left commented out. The signed URLs the backend issues are authenticated by an HMAC whose key is hardcoded to the four bytes 0xba 0xdb 0xee 0xf0, identical in every build, computed over a concatenation of endpoint, expiry, artifact name and task ID with no length prefix or delimiter, so signatures are both forgeable and ambiguous between differing artifact name and task ID pairs. The --artifact-server-addr flag defaults to the host's outbound address rather than loopback, leaving the backend reachable from the surrounding network. Any client that can reach it may read, overwrite or delete the artifacts of a concurrently running job with no credentials, exposing build outputs such as secrets and deployment credentials and permitting their replacement before the owning job consumes them. |
| Multiple DrayTek VigorSwitch models contain unauthorized operation vulnerabilities in multiple syslog functions. The vulnerability is caused by missing authorization checks. A remote attacker can trigger these vulnerabilities via crafted requests to modify configuration, restart services, save startup configuration, or clear logs. |
| stoatchat before 0.15.0 contains a permission bypass vulnerability in the message_fetch route that checks only ViewChannel permission instead of requiring ReadMessageHistory. Attackers with ViewChannel access but ReadMessageHistory denied can retrieve individual message content by ID, bypassing the intended history restriction enforced by bulk read routes. |
| SiYuan versions before v3.7.4 contain an information disclosure vulnerability in the getRefIDsByFileAnnotationID endpoint that returns block identifiers citing PDF annotations without publish-access filtering. Attackers can extract block identifiers from restricted documents by supplying annotation identifiers visible in published pages, revealing citation relationships across forbidden and password-protected tiers. |
| REST API exposes organization membership of private organizations to public |
| OAuth token introspection returns metadata of tokens issued to other clients (RFC 7662 section 4 violation) |
| Personal access token scope enforcement bypass on the repository home page (`GET /{owner}/{repo}`) discloses private repository contents |
| Public-only API token restriction is not enforced on team API routes |
| The Stripe Payment Forms by WP Full Pay WordPress plugin before 8.5.2 does not verify that the caller owns the Stripe payment intent referenced by two unauthenticated payment-form AJAX actions, allowing an unauthenticated visitor — using a nonce that is embedded in every public page containing a payment form — to change the amount of a payment intent that the Stripe Payment Forms by WP Full Pay WordPress plugin before 8.5.2 then updates server-side through the Stripe API with the store's secret key. An ownership check added in 8.5.0 was applied to only one payment-intent handler, leaving the pricing-recalculation and payment-intent-update actions unprotected against amount manipulation. |
| 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. |
