| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| The EmbedPress WordPress plugin before 4.6.8 does not perform any capability or nonce check on an unauthenticated request that triggers a server-side, credential-bearing request to a third-party API and stores attacker-controlled cache entries, allowing unauthenticated attackers to consume the site owner's third-party API quota and write unbounded records into the site's database. |
| Tandoor Recipes is an application for managing recipes, planning meals, and building shopping lists. Prior to 2.6.12, StepViewSet and IngredientViewSet filter only by active Space and use role-level CustomIsUser checks instead of the private-recipe owner or sharing predicate when an authenticated user with read and write API scope in the victim's Space supplies a private recipe or step identifier to the Step API. Request processing uses StepViewSet, IngredientViewSet, api/step/, api/step/{step_id}/, CustomIsUser, CustomRecipePermission. The attack works because the sub-resource querysets return and update private-recipe steps for non-owners because Space membership is accepted without recipe-level authorization. This can read and silently modify another same-Space member's private recipe instructions, while cross-Space access remains out of scope. This issue is fixed in version 2.6.12. |
| Gitea's package registry grants authenticated users read access to packages owned by Limited-visibility users without excluding restricted accounts. A restricted user can enumerate and download those packages despite the visibility policy that should prevent this access. The issue affects user-owned package registries and exposes package contents across the intended authorization boundary. |
| For pull request events, Gitea reads workflow definitions from the pull request head and posts a synthetic skipped status when workflow branch or path filters exclude execution. A fork pull request author can supply a workflow matching a required status context but deliberately prevent it from running. Because skipped statuses count as success, branch protection or organization-required workflow checks can appear satisfied without the mandated workflow executing; no runner or maintainer approval is required for this path. |
| Gitea enforces first-time fork contributor approval by blocking jobs, but some job transition and dispatch paths do not re-check the run's approval requirement. A separate run sharing a job-level concurrency group can cancel a pending job and cause its blocked sibling jobs to be re-emitted and dispatched without approval. This allows unreviewed workflow code to execute on self-hosted runners; fork secrets remain withheld and the run token remains read-only. |
| Gitea's activity-feed and contribution-heatmap API handlers do not apply the profile visibility check for restricted accounts viewing Limited-visibility users. A restricted user can retrieve activity records and contribution timestamps that the corresponding profile routes deny. Exposed activity can include repository names, commit messages, and issue or pull request events associated with qualifying public-repository activity. |
| Gitea's API and web issue-search paths do not treat restricted accounts as anonymous viewers when evaluating Limited-visibility repository owners. A restricted user can search and retrieve issue titles and bodies that should be hidden by the owner's visibility policy. Keyword matching can also reveal that hidden issue content or comments contain a supplied term. |
| Gitea's user SSH and GPG key-list API endpoints omit the profile visibility check applied by their web equivalents. A restricted account can retrieve public keys, key titles, fingerprints, and GPG-embedded email addresses belonging to Limited-visibility users. The disclosure concerns public key material and associated metadata, not private cryptographic keys. |
| Gitea's starred-repository and tracked-time API endpoints do not re-check current repository permissions before returning data associated with the requesting user. A user whose access to a private repository has been revoked can still retrieve repository metadata through /api/v1/user/starred and private issue titles through /api/v1/user/times. The disclosure depends on relationships or tracked-time entries created before access was revoked. |
| 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 invoice, estimate, and recurring-invoice creation paths accept client-supplied total, sub_total, tax, discount_val, and due_amount values without verifying that they match the submitted line items. An authenticated user can persist manipulated financial totals through InvoicesRequest::getInvoicePayload and the corresponding EstimatesRequest and RecurringInvoiceRequest handlers, causing stored document totals to disagree with their item prices and quantities. This issue is fixed in version 2.4.0. |
| InvoiceShelf is an open-source web & mobile app that helps track expenses, payments and create professional invoices and estimates. In version 2.3.3 and earlier, InvoiceShelf bulk-delete request validation accepts record identifiers without consistently binding them to the authenticated user's company_id. The affected DeleteCustomersRequest, DeleteEstimatesRequest, DeleteExpensesRequest, DeleteInvoiceRequest, DeleteItemsRequest, DeletePaymentsRequest, and DeleteUserRequest validators check that identifiers exist but do not consistently check tenant ownership. An authenticated user can submit another company's identifier and delete cross-company records. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.4.0. |
| A flaw was found in OpenSSH. The authorized_keys "restrict" keyword was not applied to tunnel forwarding. When PermitTunnel is enabled, a restricted key can still open a tunnel. |
| A malicious actor with access to the network and under certain conditions could exploit an Improper Access Control vulnerability found in UniFi Protect AI Key to access internal resources through the device. |
| A malicious actor with access to the network could exploit an Improper Access Control vulnerability found in UniFi Protect AI Key to access internal resources through the device. |
| A malicious actor with access to the network could exploit an Improper Access Control vulnerability found in UniFi Protect AI Key to obtain information, make unauthorized changes, and execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack on the device. |
| As part of Cisco's ongoing commitment to proactive security and product quality, Cisco has conducted a comprehensive internal security review. This review resulted in a software hardening release that addresses multiple internally discovered vulnerabilities. The vulnerabilities tracked by CVE-2026-76281 are related to improper access control issues that are grouped under the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) CWE-284. |
| ProPhoenix Law RMS v2022.2403.3.101 was discovered to contain an incorrect access control issue in sensitive API endpoints. |
| Same-origin policy bypass in the DevTools component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox 158 and Thunderbird 158. |
| Omada Controller's MSP and OpenAPI certificate/private-key management APIs do not properly enforce administrative authorization, allowing an authenticated user to perform privileged certificate management operations.
Successful exploitation may allow a low-privileged authenticated user to upload or delete the controller's TLS certificate or private key, potentially disrupting secure management access. |
| Sandbox escape in the DOM: Content Processes component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox 158 and Thunderbird 158. |
