| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| The Swagger UI Try-out console within the API Publisher documentation allows an external Swagger API definition URL to be loaded, overriding the existing API definitions within the Publisher portal.
By exploiting this vulnerability, malicious actors can deceive users into interacting with these overwritten API definitions. This could lead to the exposure of sensitive information or the initiation of unintended requests to backend services. |
| In multi-tenant deployments, the Publisher REST APIs fail to enforce tenant isolation correctly. This allows a user in one tenant, possessing sufficient privileges to invoke these APIs, to perform operations that impact other tenants.
The vulnerability allows a privileged user to perform publisher operations such as exposing or modifying API Metadata in another tenant environment. This impact is only realized in multi-tenant deployments. |
| The XML and schema validation functionalities within the SchemaValidator Mediator process XML input as part of validation flows. Under certain conditions, the XML parser allows the resolution of external entities when handling user-supplied XML content during validation operations. This behavior can occur when an attacker supplies crafted XML payloads to the relevant mediator flows with sufficient privileges.
Successful exploitation may allow a highly privileged actor to read files accessible within the server hosting the affected product. Additionally, it may be possible to trigger outbound requests to unintended internal or external locations, depending on the server environment and network configuration. Specially crafted XML payloads can also lead to excessive resource consumption during parsing, impacting the availability of the product. |
| The System REST API accepts user-supplied file uploads without enforcing sufficient validation on the file type or destination, allowing files to be written to arbitrary server-accessible locations. Exploitation requires authenticated administrative access with publisher privileges.
Successful exploitation permits an authenticated publisher to upload files to server-accessible locations. Depending on the deployment environment and how uploaded files are handled, this could lead to the execution of uploaded content, potentially resulting in remote code execution. |
| The Class Mediator fails to correctly validate or sanitize `messageContext` properties when they are used to populate dynamic values. This allows authenticated users to potentially access or modify data across different system invocations that should be isolated.
This weakness can lead to the disclosure of sensitive information belonging to other users or the unintended modification of system data by authenticated users. The exact impact depends on how `messageContext` properties are utilized within the affected WSO2 products. |
| 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 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. |
| 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 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. |
| 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 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. |
| 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 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. |
| 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 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. |
| 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 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. |
| 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 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. |
| 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 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. |
| 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 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. |
| 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 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. |
| 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 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. |
| 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 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. |
| 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. 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. |
| 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 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. |
| 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 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. |
