Incorrect Authorization

In wolfSSH through 1.5.0 built with --enable-fwd, DoChannelOpen() in src/internal.c gates only direct-tcpip channel opens with the forwarding policy callback. forwarded-tcpip opens are admitted without an authorization check and are not capped in number, allowing a malicious SSH peer to make an endpoint allocate unbounded per-channel buffers for forwarding channels the application never authorized. A client also does not check a forwarded-tcpip open against the forwards it registered with a tcpip-forward request, as RFC 4254 section 7.2 requires, so a malicious server can open forwarding channels for addresses and ports the client never asked it to forward.Show less

A flaw was found in Candlepin. The central authorization filter incorrectly grants access when any one of multiple @Verify-annotated parameters is accessible, instead of requiring access to every verified entity. A low-privilege authenticated attacker who can access the first referenced object can bypass authorization checks on subsequent objects. When target resource identifiers are known, this can enable unauthorized disclosure of consumer information and unauthorized modification of entitlements and related subscription resources, including across organizations.Show less

Requesting a user or organization profile page (`GET /{username}`) with an `Accept: application/rss+xml` or `Accept: application/atom+xml` header returned the owner's activity feed without the visibility check that the profile page and the `.rss` and `.atom` routes apply. Anonymous users, restricted users and non-members could confirm the existence of limited or private users and private organizations and read their profile details and public activity, also when `[other] ENABLE_FEED` was disabled. Activity in private repositories was not included.Show less

The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule.Show less

With `[repository] FORCE_PRIVATE = true`, Gitea creates new repositories as private, but the post-receive hook still applied the `repo.private=false` push option to an empty repository created by push. Any user who can create repositories could make their new repository public in violation of the instance policy. The default configuration is not affected.Show less

The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process.Show less

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Prior to 3.5.1, 3.6.2, 3.7.2, 3.8.2 and 3.9.1, the @backstage/plugin-catalog-backend package is affected by improper url validation in catalog entity placeholder resolution. An authenticated Backstage user could craft a catalog entity with placeholder directives that reference resources outside the entity's source repository. Under certain configurations, this could allow access to data not intended to be available to the user. This issue is fixed in versions 3.5.1, 3.6.2, 3.7.2, 3.8.2 and 3.9.1.Show less

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Prior to 3.9.1, the @backstage/plugin-catalog-backend package is affected by inconsistent catalog property permission evaluation. In deployments that use affected value-based catalog permission conditions as a confidentiality boundary, an authenticated user could receive catalog entity data that policy authors intended to restrict. This issue is fixed in version 3.9.1.Show less

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Prior to 3.9.1, the @backstage/plugin-catalog-backend package is affected by inconsistent enforcement of allowed location types during catalog processing. Under certain configurations, the catalog backend could process location types that were not intended to be allowed, potentially leading to unintended file access on the backend host. This issue is fixed in version 3.9.1.Show less

The Gitea API routes for issue attachments (`/api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/assets/{attachment_id}`) also accepted attachments that belong to comments on the issue. Because the author of an issue may edit and delete the issue's attachments, a user who opened an issue could rename or delete attachments that other users had posted in comments on that issue. The contents of the attachments could not be changed.Show less

The Gitea web route for deleting tags (`POST /{owner}/{repo}/tags/delete`) requires only write access to the Code unit, but shares its handler with release deletion and did not check that the target was a plain tag. A collaborator with Code write access and without Releases write access could permanently delete published releases of that repository, including their attachments. Protected tag rules covering the release tag still blocked the deletion.Show less

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Prior to 0.16.1 and 0.17.8, the @backstage/backend-defaults package is affected by improper preservation of access restrictions during service credential delegation. An external service credential configured with access restrictions (e.g., read-only) could bypass those restrictions by routing requests through plugin delegation paths. This could allow a restricted service to perform operations beyond its intended scope, including write operations on plugins it was restricted to read-only access for. This issue is fixed in versions 0.16.1 and 0.17.8.Show less

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Prior to 0.8.7, the @backstage/plugin-catalog-backend-module-gitlab package is affected by improper authorization in gitlab organizational user ingestion. Deployments that enable GitLab organization event ingestion and rely on scoped catalog users as an access boundary may admit an unintended catalog identity. Depending on sign-in and permission configuration, this may allow unauthorized access with the permissions of a standard authenticated user. This issue is fixed in version 0.8.7.Show less

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Prior to 1.54.6, scaffolder source-control actions may not consistently enforce intended credential boundaries. An authenticated user could cause an affected action to fall back to broader integration credentials and perform operations with more access than intended. This issue is fixed in 1.54.6 when operators also enable scaffolder.requireScmUserCredentials after upgrading.Show less

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Prior to 4.1.0, the @backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend package is affected by incorrect authorization in scaffolder task listing. An authenticated internal user may be able to view metadata for scaffolder tasks outside the visibility intended by a deployment's permission policy. Stored task secrets are not included in the affected response, and no integrity or availability impact was identified. This issue is fixed in version 4.1.0.Show less

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. From 0.4.0 until 0.5.15, the @backstage/plugin-catalog-backend-module-bitbucket-server package is affected by inconsistent repository filtering in bitbucket server catalog event updates. Deployments using event-driven updates in the Bitbucket Server catalog provider may ingest catalog locations from repositories that are excluded by the provider's configured project, repository, or archived-repository filters. An authenticated Bitbucket Server user who can push to a filtered-out repository that remains readable by the configured Backstage integration can trigger a legitimate repository event. The affected event path may then add a Location for that repository even though scheduled discovery excludes it. This issue is fixed in version 0.5.15.Show less

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. From 0.5.0 until 0.6.18, the @backstage/plugin-proxy-backend package is affected by inconsistent credential enforcement for overlapping proxy routes. An operator can configure overlapping proxy paths with different credential requirements. When a parent path permits unauthenticated access and a nested path requires credentials, the parent exemption can also cover requests handled by the nested proxy. An unauthenticated caller may therefore reach the nested upstream through Backstage, including with static upstream credentials configured for that proxy. This issue is fixed in version 0.6.18.Show less

When a private repository is transferred to a user who lacks access, Gitea grants that recipient temporary read access as a collaborator so they can review the repository. Rejecting or cancelling the transfer did not revoke this collaboration, so the named recipient kept persistent read access to the private repository, including its code, issues, pull requests and wiki, and could clone it. The repository owner was not notified. Transfer-granted access is now removed while collaborations that existed before the transfer are preserved.Show less

Gitea Actions decided whether a fork pull request run needed approval based on the user who triggered the event rather than the pull request author. For `pull_request` activity triggered by a maintainer during ordinary triage, such as adding a label, the run was created without requiring approval, while the workflow definition was still taken from the fork head. Where Actions is enabled and a matching runner is registered, fork-controlled workflow code could run on the base repository's runners without an explicit approval.Show less

When a push was authenticated with a deploy key, Gitea recorded the repository owner as the pusher, so permission checks in the push hook pipeline evaluated the owner instead of the deploy key. A holder of a writable deploy key could create protected tags without being on the tag allow list and change repository visibility through push options, for example making a private repository public. Pull requests created through the AGit flow with a deploy key were also attributed to the owner.Show less