GHSA-879r-7f3w-8jj3 CVE-2012-5489 PYSEC-2014-31 PYSEC-2014-74

Plone and Zope2 vulnerable to unauthorized access to restricted attributes

Medium PyPI

Severity: 0.0 / 10; Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS): 1.94%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 80.12% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix: Available; 2 packages have a fixed version

Description

The App.Undo.UndoSupport.get_request_var_or_attr function in Zope before 2.12.21 and 3.13.x before 2.13.11, as used in Plone before 4.2.3 and 4.3 before beta 1, allows remote authenticated users to gain access to restricted attributes via unspecified vectors.

Affected versions

PyPI

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
plone	`>= 3.2.2, < 4.2.3`	`4.2.3`
plone	`>= 4.3a1, < 4.3b1`	`4.3b1`
plone	`< 4.2.3` `>= 4.3a0, < 4.3b1`	`4.2.3` `4.3b1`
zope2	`< 2.12.21`	`2.12.21`
zope2	`>= 2.13.0, < 2.13.11`	`2.13.11`
zope2	`< 2.12.21` `>= 2.13, < 2.13.11`	`2.12.21` `2.13.11`

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

plone PyPI → `4.2.3`

pip

pip install --upgrade "plone>=4.2.3"

poetry

poetry add "plone>=4.2.3"

uv

uv add "plone>=4.2.3"

zope2 PyPI → `2.12.21`

pip

pip install --upgrade "zope2>=2.12.21"

poetry

poetry add "zope2>=2.12.21"

uv

uv add "zope2>=2.12.21"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: Low
Attack requirements: None
Privileges required: Low
User interaction: None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system): High
Integrity (vulnerable system): None
Availability (vulnerable system): None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems): None
Integrity (subsequent systems): None
Availability (subsequent systems): None

CVSS 3.1 6.5

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: Low
Privileges required: Low
User interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
Availability: None

Weakness

CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

How to prevent it

Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Advisories

Timeline

Sep 30, 2014 Published
Oct 14, 2024 Last updated by the source
Oct 31, 2026 Latest EPSS score

Advisory	Severity	Why it's related
GHSA-xg5p-8wg5-rhxm Phone information disclosure vulnerability	High	Also affects plone
GHSA-5xfx-55x4-j223 Cross-Frame Scripting vulnerability has been found on Plone CMS	High	Also affects plone
GHSA-47p5-p3jw-w78w Server-Side Request Forgery in Plone CMS	High	Also affects plone
GHSA-cvwc-g7fw-7xrj Plone XSS Vulnerability	Medium	Also affects plone
GHSA-pwgm-jvqv-6v8p Plone anonymous access to sub-objects in CMFEditions where KwAsAttributes classes were publishable	High	Also affects plone
GHSA-46f9-f8jm-mw2x Plone Cross-site Scripting vulnerability in the LiveSearch module	Medium	Also affects plone
GHSA-hjp5-hv33-q58g Plone credentials stored in session cookie	Medium	Also affects plone
GHSA-593c-j348-f3gv Plone Improper Session Management	High	Also affects plone

Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor