| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| The Stripe Payment Forms by WP Full Pay WordPress plugin before 8.5.5 does not verify that a subscription belongs to the customer bound to the requesting customer-portal session before cancelling it, allowing a user with a confirmed portal session to cancel subscriptions belonging to other customers.
Exploitation requires the attacker to know the target subscription's identifier, which is high-entropy and not enumerable through the Stripe Payment Forms by WP Full Pay WordPress plugin before 8.5.5. |
| The MasterStudy LMS WordPress Plugin WordPress plugin before 3.7.42 does not correctly restrict access to order information, allowing any user with the instructor role to read other users' order billing details, including name, email address, phone number and postal address, by enumerating order IDs. |
| IDURAR ERP CRM changes the password of whichever account a request names rather than the account making the request. The update handler in backend/src/controllers/middlewaresControllers/createUserController/updatePassword.js resolves the authenticated user from the request that the token middleware populated, then issues its update against a filter built from the identifier in the URL path, and never compares the two. The route is mounted behind the administrator token check only, so any valid administrator session is sufficient, and the sole ownership-like guard in the handler rejects a single hardcoded demo address. A caller can therefore set an arbitrary password on any other administrator account and sign in as it. The read handler in the same controller directory accepts an identifier the same way, which supplies the identifiers needed to pick a target. |
| Graylog is a free and open log management platform. From 6.2.0 until 6.3.12, 7.0.7, and 7.1.2, the DELETE /users/{userId}/tokens/{idOrToken} endpoint implemented by UsersResource.revokeToken() in graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/rest/resources/users/UsersResource.java checks USERS_TOKENREMOVE permission against the attacker-controlled userId path parameter before resolving the token selected by idOrToken. An authenticated user can provide an authorized userId while accessTokenService.loadById() or accessTokenService.load() resolves a token belonging to another user, including a service account or administrator, after which accessTokenService.destroy() deletes that token without checking AccessToken.getUserName(). The issue does not expose token contents, but unauthorized deletion causes integrity impact and can disrupt access-token-based integrations. This issue is fixed in versions 6.3.12, 7.0.7, and 7.1.2. |
| A flaw was found in Katello where the Content View History API does not properly enforce authorization when accessing a Content View specified by the user. An authenticated user with permission to view Content Views in one organization may be able to access the lifecycle history of a Content View belonging to another organization by supplying its identifier to the affected API endpoint. This can result in unauthorized disclosure of Content View lifecycle information, including publication and promotion events, associated users, and timestamps. |
| VoltAgent through 2.1.20 fails to validate conversation ownership in memory API handlers, allowing authenticated users to access other users' conversations. Attackers can read, modify, and delete arbitrary conversations and messages by supplying caller-controlled identifiers to memory endpoints. |
| Quivr versions through 0.0.322 fail to validate chat ownership in the GET /chat/{chat_id}/history, DELETE /chat/{chat_id}, and POST /chat/{chat_id}/question/answer endpoints. Authenticated attackers can read other users' conversation histories including private knowledge base content, delete arbitrary chats, and inject fabricated messages into other users' conversations. |
| Vikunja is an open-source self-hosted task management platform. Prior to 2.4.0, POST /api/v1/projects/{project}/views/{view}/buckets/{bucket} allows the request body project_view_id value to be mass assigned by Bucket.Update in pkg/models/kanban.go. The permission check validates that the bucket currently belongs to the URL project and view but does not validate the body selected destination view, allowing any authenticated user to relocate an attacker-owned bucket into another tenant’s Kanban view. The injected bucket retains attacker-controlled content and ownership, enabling cross-tenant defacement. This issue is fixed in version 2.4.0. |
| Hatchet is a platform for orchestrating background tasks, AI agents, and durable workflows at scale. From 0.40.0 until 0.91.1, the Dispatcher gRPC service does not verify that a request's worker ID belongs to the tenant identified by the bearer-token context in Dispatcher/UpsertWorkerLabels and Dispatcher/Unsubscribe. An authenticated owner of any tenant who guesses another tenant's worker UUID can overwrite that worker's affinity labels or disconnect the worker from the dispatcher. This can cause cross-tenant integrity impact and denial of service on multi-tenant Hatchet Cloud or shared self-hosted deployments. Single-tenant deployments are not practically affected because the attacker and target tenant are the same. This issue is fixed in version 0.91.1. |
| Incorrect access control in the getMacFilterRules function of TOTOLINK T6 4.1.5cu.748_B20211015 allows unauthenticated attackers to obtain MAC filter rules via sending a crafted POST request to /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi. |
| Vikunja is an open-source self-hosted task management platform. From 0.24.6 until 2.4.0, DELETE /api/v1/projects/:project/views/:view permits an authenticated user to supply a view identifier from another project while authorizing only against an attacker-controlled project identifier. ProjectView.CanDelete in pkg/models/project_view_permissions.go does not establish that the view belongs to the path project, and ProjectView.Delete in pkg/models/project_view.go continues after the scoped project_views delete affects no rows. Its subsequent deletes select task_buckets and task_positions only by project_view_id, allowing cross-tenant destruction of Kanban assignments and ordering while leaving the victim view and tasks intact. This issue is fixed in version 2.4.0. |
| Vikunja is an open-source self-hosted task management platform. Prior to 2.4.0, POST /api/v1/projects/{project}/views/{view}/buckets/{bucket}/tasks accepts a body supplied task_id but TaskBucket.CanUpdate in pkg/models/kanban_task_bucket.go authorizes only the project, view, and bucket from the URL. updateTaskBucket then calls Task.ReadOne without a separate task permission check, returns the victim task contents, and can update the task done state when the attacker chooses a done bucket. Because task identifiers are global sequential values, an authenticated user can enumerate cross-tenant tasks and modify their completion metadata through both the v1 and v2 routes that share this model. This issue is fixed in version 2.4.0. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.1 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute and read any user's private flow due to improper authorization. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.1 could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information and inject unauthorized messages due to a namespace collision between user identifiers. |
| The WP Courses LMS – Online Courses Builder, eLearning Courses, Courses Solution, Education Courses plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Insecure Direct Object Reference in all versions up to, and including, 3.2.29 via the 'resultID' parameter due to missing validation on a user controlled key. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with custom-level access and above, to read any other user's quiz answers and scores by enumerating the incrementing resultID value via the wpcq_get_quiz_result AJAX action. The only access control on this endpoint is a nonce check (wpc_nonce) that is exposed to every logged-in user on the frontend, providing no meaningful authorization barrier. |
| ** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2026-78278. Reason: This candidate is a reservation duplicate of CVE-2026-78278. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2026-78278 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage. |
| The permission check for the frontend management update flow verified a different event than the one the request went on to modify. A user with frontend event management access could therefore modify events belonging to other organizers. |
| The frontend topic editing flow does not verify on the server side that the requesting visitor owns the topic being modified. As a result, a visitor who knows the identifier of a topic from the public forum can submit a modified update request for that topic directly and overwrite its content, without the application confirming ownership. Topic identifiers are visible in the public forum listing, and exploitation requires no privileged access or non-default configuration. |
| The frontend company self-service editing feature relies on a template-level visibility flag to hide the edit form for company records a visitor does not own, but the corresponding write operation does not repeat this ownership check on the server side. As a result, a visitor who knows the identifier of a company record from the public directory can submit a modified update request for that record directly and overwrite its data, without the application ever confirming that the visitor owns it. |
| The extension resolves the targeted club record from a user-supplied request argument in its frontend edit, update, and activate actions, but performs no ownership check in any of them. An unauthenticated visitor who knows the UID of a club record can send a direct request to the update or activate action and overwrite that record, or publish one still awaiting approval, without owning it. |
