361,800
Total CVEs
26,223
Critical
85,816
High
1,626
CISA KEV
1,172
This Week
601 results · Page 1/25
The system accepts authentication requests without sufficient validation to enforce tenant isolation when using Email OTP, SMS OTP, or Magic Link as first-factor authenticators. This failure to adequately separate user data between tenants can lead to the exposure of personally identifiable information. Successful exploitation allows an attacker to disclose personally identifiable information of users in different tenants, resulting in privacy violations and potential regulatory non-compliance. This may include unauthorized access to user details such as mobile numbers.
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.
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.