| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| The Modern Events Calendar Lite WordPress plugin before 7.36.4 does not verify that a user is authorized to edit the target post before updating it, allowing authenticated users with the Subscriber role to modify the title, content, and excerpt of arbitrary posts, pages, and custom post types created by other users. |
| The PickPlugins Product Designer for WooCommerce WordPress plugin through 1.0.40 does not perform any capability check and its nonce verification is inverted, accepting requests with an invalid or absent nonce while rejecting valid ones, and it does not validate the post the data is written to, allowing unauthenticated users to insert design template data into the metadata of any post on the site. |
| The Tasty Recipes Lite WordPress plugin before 1.2.11 does not correctly check user capabilities when creating, renaming and deleting taxonomy terms, allowing users with a role as low as Contributor to add, rename and permanently delete terms in any taxonomy on the site, including categories, tags and navigation menus. |
| The Salon Booking System WordPress plugin before 10.31.11 does not restrict which user account its salon staff roles may edit through the customers management screen, allowing users with the Salon Staff or Salon Worker role to reset any other user's role, including administrators, to a customer and to overwrite arbitrary profile fields on any account, leading to loss of administrative access and potential site lockout. |
| The Modern Events Calendar Lite WordPress plugin before 7.37.0 does not perform capability, nonce, or ownership checks before returning event booking and attendee data, allowing any authenticated user, including Subscribers, to disclose the names, email addresses, transaction IDs and payment amounts of every booking on the site. |
| The AI Engine WordPress plugin before 3.7.9 does not check that the item passed to one of its media actions belongs to the requesting user before converting it to an attachment and permanently deleting it, allowing users with the Editor role and above to delete arbitrary posts of any type, including content they cannot otherwise delete such as navigation menus, block templates and global styles. |
| The AI Engine WordPress plugin before 3.7.9 does not verify that the user performing certain AI media management actions owns or is otherwise allowed to edit the targeted object, allowing users with the Editor role or above to modify, or change the type of, arbitrary posts on the site, including content they are not permitted to edit. |
| Gitea's web attachment handler skips its cross-repository ownership check for attachments created before 16 January 2026 and checks permissions against the repository named in the request URL instead. An unauthenticated attacker who knows a private attachment's UUID can request it through a public repository's attachment path and retrieve its contents. This can expose issue and pull request attachments or release assets; the random attachment UUID must already be known to the attacker. |
| The WP Data Access WordPress plugin before 5.5.88 does not have authorisation and CSRF checks in one of its actions, allowing any authenticated user, such as a subscriber, to make the server open connections to arbitrary hosts and ports, including internal ones, and read back the outcome. |
| 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. |
| Lychee is a free, open-source photo-management tool. Prior to 7.6.1, when photos_star_visibility is set to anonymous, POST /api/v2/Photo::highlight can fetch and modify a photo without confirming that the caller can see it. BaseApiRequest::validateResolved() invokes SetPhotosHighlightedRequest::processValidatedValues() before authorization, and PhotoPolicy::canHighlight() returns true for anonymous callers without a canSee check. An unauthenticated attacker who can guess photo identifiers can distinguish existing private photos through differing success and not-found responses and can change their is_highlighted state, including for photos in private or password-protected albums. The issue is limited to installations using the non-default anonymous star-visibility setting. This issue is fixed in version 7.6.1. |
| 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. |
