The JWT authentication mechanism accepts tokens signed with algorithms other than those explicitly configured or supported. This allows an attacker to craft a JWT with an unsupported algorithm, which is then incorrectly...Show moreThe JWT authentication mechanism accepts tokens signed with algorithms other than those explicitly configured or supported. This allows an attacker to craft a JWT with an unsupported algorithm, which is then incorrectly validated, leading to unauthorized access.
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may result in unauthorized access to the system, including the potential compromise of administrative accounts and full account takeover. The CVSS score is adjusted to 9.8 (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H) in single-tenant deployments, reflecting that the impact is contained within a single security authority boundary.Show less |
Tokens issued to a low-privileged user are not sufficiently restricted, allowing them to be used to access product-level Admin REST APIs.
Exploitation of this vulnerability allows a low-privileged user to invoke the Adm...Show moreTokens issued to a low-privileged user are not sufficiently restricted, allowing them to be used to access product-level Admin REST APIs.
Exploitation of this vulnerability allows a low-privileged user to invoke the Admin REST APIs of WSO2 products, potentially leading to full administrative account takeover. This requires the attacker to already possess a low-privileged user account and be able to obtain a valid token for it.Show less |
When an Event Publisher output adapter is configured with irrelevant properties, the affected products log these properties. This logging occurs without sufficient validation or sanitization of the property values.
A ma...Show moreWhen an Event Publisher output adapter is configured with irrelevant properties, the affected products log these properties. This logging occurs without sufficient validation or sanitization of the property values.
A malicious actor with access to the 'wso2carbon' log files could retrieve sensitive information, such as user credentials or other confidential data, that was inadvertently logged due to misconfiguration, potentially leading to unauthorized access.Show less |
The Conditional Authentication (Adaptive Authentication) script does not correctly enforce the completion of all required authentication steps when a specific multi-step pattern involving certain authenticators is config...Show moreThe Conditional Authentication (Adaptive Authentication) script does not correctly enforce the completion of all required authentication steps when a specific multi-step pattern involving certain authenticators is configured. This allows an attacker to bypass intermediate authentication challenges by exploiting how the script handles callbacks and re-execution of authentication steps.
Successful exploitation allows a malicious actor to gain unauthorized access to a targeted user account. This vulnerability can only be exploited when all of the following conditions are met: the application login flow contains a specific secondary authenticator, the Conditional Authentication script is configured with particular event callbacks and re-executes an authentication step, the targeted user has one of the impacted authenticators enrolled, and the attacker successfully completes any preceding authentication steps.Show less |
When Multi-Attribute Login is enabled, the login interface fails to consistently mask the existence of user accounts. For valid users, the server resolves and displays their canonical username, while for non-existent use...Show moreWhen Multi-Attribute Login is enabled, the login interface fails to consistently mask the existence of user accounts. For valid users, the server resolves and displays their canonical username, while for non-existent users, it echoes the original input. This occurs regardless of the validate_username configuration.
The discovery of valid usernames can increase the risk of brute force attacks, social engineering attacks, and targeted information leakage. Attackers can leverage this information to craft more effective phishing campaigns or social engineering tactics to compromise user accounts or extract sensitive data.Show less |
The Ajax processor within the Carbon console fails to adequately protect state-changing operations from Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks. Specifically, it utilizes the HTTP GET method for these operations, and w...Show moreThe Ajax processor within the Carbon console fails to adequately protect state-changing operations from Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks. Specifically, it utilizes the HTTP GET method for these operations, and while the SameSite=Lax cookie attribute is employed for mitigation, this mechanism is bypassed as it permits cookies to be sent with cross-origin top-level navigation requests, including GET requests. This allows an attacker to trick an authenticated user's browser into unknowingly executing unintended actions.
An attacker can exploit this vulnerability to perform unauthorized state-altering requests on behalf of authenticated users. This could lead to consequences such as data modification, account changes, or other actions that could result in data compromise or loss of user control over their account. However, this attack is only feasible if the Carbon console and related services are exposed to the public internet, which is not recommended according to WSO2's security guidelines.Show less |
Unused authorization codes issued to deleted users are not being properly invalidated or removed from the system. This allows for the persistence of these codes, enabling them to be potentially reused.
If an attacker po...Show moreUnused authorization codes issued to deleted users are not being properly invalidated or removed from the system. This allows for the persistence of these codes, enabling them to be potentially reused.
If an attacker possesses both the authorization code and the associated client credentials (client ID and client secret), they can leverage these unused codes to obtain access tokens on behalf of users who have already been deleted. This may lead to unauthorized access to sensitive resources and services, contingent on the scopes originally authorized for the compromised authorization code.Show less |
The account locking mechanism fails to trigger when secondary user stores are inaccessible. The software does not maintain a consistent state for account locking if it cannot reach all configured user stores, allowing an...Show moreThe account locking mechanism fails to trigger when secondary user stores are inaccessible. The software does not maintain a consistent state for account locking if it cannot reach all configured user stores, allowing an attacker to repeatedly attempt authentication with invalid credentials without triggering the lockout mechanism for users within active stores.
When the account locking mechanism is bypassed due to the inaccessibility of secondary user stores, users in accessible user stores are left vulnerable to brute force attacks. A malicious actor can exploit this by attempting numerous invalid password combinations against a user account without the expected account lockout consequence.Show less |
The user self-signup flow in multiple WSO2 products fails to adequately validate user-supplied input. This weakness allows arbitrary unvalidated data to be included within user claims, which are then used by downstream p...Show moreThe user self-signup flow in multiple WSO2 products fails to adequately validate user-supplied input. This weakness allows arbitrary unvalidated data to be included within user claims, which are then used by downstream processes.
Allowing unvalidated input into user claims can lead to various security risks. Malicious or malformed data injected during signup could be processed by other parts of the application, potentially enabling attacks such as content manipulation, redirection, user interface inconsistencies, unauthorized actions, and data exposure. The actual impact depends on how the compromised data is consumed and the privileges associated with the affected users.Show less |
The affected product accepts user-supplied input within a URL parameter without enforcing expected sanitization or encoding before rendering it within the response. This condition allows for the injection of malicious Ja...Show moreThe affected product accepts user-supplied input within a URL parameter without enforcing expected sanitization or encoding before rendering it within the response. This condition allows for the injection of malicious JavaScript payloads.
An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to cause the user's browser to redirect to a malicious website, modify the user interface of the webpage, or retrieve sensitive information from the browser. However, the impact is mitigated for session hijacking as all session-related sensitive cookies are protected by the httpOnly flag.Show less |
The throttling event handling mechanism in multiple WSO2 products accepts user-supplied JSON payloads without sufficient validation of their structure and content. This allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to inject...Show moreThe throttling event handling mechanism in multiple WSO2 products accepts user-supplied JSON payloads without sufficient validation of their structure and content. This allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to inject malicious JSON data that can lead to a persistent denial of service condition.
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability can disrupt the API Gateway, preventing legitimate API traffic from being processed and impacting complete service availability. The denial of service is persistent, requiring manual intervention to restore normal operations.Show less |
The software accepts user-supplied input via a URL parameter without adequate output encoding before reflecting it back to the user's browser. This condition allows an attacker to inject malicious script content into pag...Show moreThe software accepts user-supplied input via a URL parameter without adequate output encoding before reflecting it back to the user's browser. This condition allows an attacker to inject malicious script content into pages served by the application.
By leveraging this weakness, an attacker can cause the user's browser to redirect to a malicious website, modify the UI of the webpage, or retrieve information from the browser. However, the impact is mitigated by the use of httpOnly flags on session-related cookies, preventing session hijacking.Show less |
The silent Just-In-Time (JIT) provisioning feature in federated authentication implementations fails to properly segregate user roles during account creation when a federated user shares a username with a local user. Thi...Show moreThe silent Just-In-Time (JIT) provisioning feature in federated authentication implementations fails to properly segregate user roles during account creation when a federated user shares a username with a local user. This allows the provisioning process to overwrite existing roles of local users with roles assigned to the federated user.
Exploitation requires a federated identity provider (IDP) with silent JIT provisioning enabled and an attacker's knowledge of a local user's username. When these conditions are met, a malicious individual can leverage the JIT provisioning process to modify the roles of local users. The overwritten roles are limited to those defined within the federated IDP, typically granting minimal access rights unless explicitly configured otherwise by the federated IDP administrator.Show less |
In multi-tenanted deployments, the application consent management mechanism fails to correctly isolate consent scopes between tenants. Consent granted by a user for a specific SaaS application within one tenant can be in...Show moreIn multi-tenanted deployments, the application consent management mechanism fails to correctly isolate consent scopes between tenants. Consent granted by a user for a specific SaaS application within one tenant can be incorrectly applied to SaaS applications with the same name in other tenants, leading to unintended cross-tenant consent sharing.
This vulnerability may result in the exposure of user data across tenants, enabling SaaS applications in different tenants to access and modify information without explicit user authorization. This can lead to unauthorized data access and privacy violations. This vulnerability has no impact if the deployment does not support multi-tenancy.Show less |
The WSO2 API Manager's message flow component, when processing WS-Addressing headers, does not sufficiently validate or restrict user-controlled input within these headers. This omission allows an attacker to manipulate...Show moreThe WSO2 API Manager's message flow component, when processing WS-Addressing headers, does not sufficiently validate or restrict user-controlled input within these headers. This omission allows an attacker to manipulate WS-Addressing headers to specify arbitrary destinations for server-initiated requests.
Successful exploitation allows an unauthenticated attacker to control the destination of server-initiated requests originating from the WSO2 API Manager. This direct control can enable unauthorized access to internal network resources or services that would typically be inaccessible from external networks.Show less |
The software fails to enforce role-based access controls for certain Gateway API invocations. Users with the 'Internal/Everyone' role can invoke these APIs, bypassing intended permission checks. This same vulnerability a...Show moreThe software fails to enforce role-based access controls for certain Gateway API invocations. Users with the 'Internal/Everyone' role can invoke these APIs, bypassing intended permission checks. This same vulnerability also affects Internal Service APIs, potentially exposing them in WSO2 APIM 3.x versions.
A malicious actor with a valid user account on a vulnerable deployment can perform sensitive operations against the Gateway REST API regardless of their actual roles or privileges. This could lead to unintended behavior or misuse, particularly in production environments.Show less |
In Webhook API invocations, the component accepts user-supplied input for HTTP request headers without sufficient validation or sanitization, allowing these headers to be injected into HTTP responses.
By exploiting this...Show moreIn Webhook API invocations, the component accepts user-supplied input for HTTP request headers without sufficient validation or sanitization, allowing these headers to be injected into HTTP responses.
By exploiting this vulnerability, a malicious actor can inject or overwrite arbitrary HTTP response headers. This can lead to various adverse effects, including the manipulation of browser caching, alteration of security-related headers, and the injection of sensitive information such as cookie values, potentially enabling session hijacking or other malicious activities.Show less |
The authentication endpoint fails to encode user-supplied input before rendering it in the web page, allowing for script injection.
An attacker can leverage this by injecting malicious scripts into the authentication end...Show moreThe authentication endpoint fails to encode user-supplied input before rendering it in the web page, allowing for script injection.
An attacker can leverage this by injecting malicious scripts into the authentication endpoint. This can result in the user's browser being redirected to a malicious website, manipulation of the web page's user interface, or the retrieval of information from the browser. However, session hijacking is not possible due to the httpOnly flag protecting session-related cookies.Show less |
The component accepts XML input through the publisher without disabling external entity resolution. This allows malicious actors to submit a crafted XML payload that exploits the unescaped external entity references.
By...Show moreThe component accepts XML input through the publisher without disabling external entity resolution. This allows malicious actors to submit a crafted XML payload that exploits the unescaped external entity references.
By leveraging this vulnerability, a malicious actor can read confidential files from the product's file system or access limited HTTP resources reachable via HTTP GET requests to the vulnerable product.Show less |
The WSO2 API Manager developer portal accepts user-supplied input without enforcing expected validation constraints or proper output encoding. This deficiency allows a malicious actor to inject script content that is exe...Show moreThe WSO2 API Manager developer portal accepts user-supplied input without enforcing expected validation constraints or proper output encoding. This deficiency allows a malicious actor to inject script content that is executed within the context of a user's browser.
By leveraging this cross-site scripting vulnerability, a malicious actor can cause the browser to redirect to a malicious website, make changes to the UI of the web page, or retrieve information from the browser. However, session hijacking is not possible as all session-related sensitive cookies are protected by the httpOnly flag.Show less |