GHSA-8fq9-273g-6mrg CVE-2026-55518
Avo: Missing Authorization in Avo Association Attach Endpoint Allows Unauthorized Relationship Manipulation and Privilege Escalation
- Severity
- 9.6 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.41%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 35.40% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-639 Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
- CWE-862 Missing Authorization
- CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
- Fix
3.32.1- Upgrade avo to this version or later
Description
Summary
A critical missing authorization flaw exists in Avo's association attach workflow. The UI and GET /resources/:resource/:id/:related/new path can check attach_<association>?, but the actual write endpoint, POST /resources/:resource/:id/:related, does not run the same authorization check before mutating the association.
As a result, an authenticated low-privileged Avo user can bypass hidden/disabled attach controls and directly attach related records to a parent record by sending a crafted POST request. In applications where associations represent teams, tenants, roles, projects, users, memberships, ownership, or other authorization-bearing relationships, this can lead to privilege escalation and cross-tenant data exposure.
Details
The association attach route writes relationships through Avo::AssociationsController#create:
# config/routes.rb
post "/:resource_name/:id/:related_name", to: "associations#create", as: "associations_create"
The controller registers an attach authorization callback only for new, not for create:
# app/controllers/avo/associations_controller.rb
before_action :set_attachment_record, only: [:create, :destroy]
before_action :authorize_index_action, only: :index
before_action :authorize_attach_action, only: :new
before_action :authorize_detach_action, only: :destroy
The new action is only the form-rendering step. The actual mutation happens in create:
def create
if create_association
create_success_action
else
create_fail_action
end
end
create_association then attaches the attacker-supplied related record to the parent:
def create_association
association_name = BaseResource.valid_association_name(@record, association_from_params)
perform_action_and_record_errors do
if through_reflection? && additional_params.present?
new_join_record.save
elsif has_many_reflection? || through_reflection?
@record.send(association_name) << @attachment_record
else
@record.send(:"#{association_name}=", @attachment_record)
@record.save!
end
end
end
The only attach-specific authorization helper is:
def authorize_attach_action
authorize_if_defined "attach_#{@field.id}?"
end
Because this helper is bound only to new, a policy that denies attach_users?, attach_teams?, attach_roles?, or similar methods blocks the UI/form path but does not protect the write path.
This is inconsistent with the detach path, which does authorize the mutating destroy action:
before_action :authorize_detach_action, only: :destroy
The bug is especially dangerous because Avo already treats association authorization as an access-control boundary in UI components:
# lib/avo/concerns/checks_assoc_authorization.rb
method_name = :"#{policy_method}_#{association_name}?".to_sym
if service.has_method?(method_name, raise_exception: false)
service.authorize_action(method_name, record:, raise_exception: false)
else
!Avo.configuration.explicit_authorization
end
However, server-side enforcement is missing on the actual attach POST endpoint.
Proof of Concept
Prerequisites:
- A Rails application mounts Avo, for example at
/admin. - Avo authorization is enabled.
- A low-privileged user can authenticate to Avo.
- A parent record and a related record are both reachable by ID.
- The relevant policy denies attaching the relationship, for example:
def attach_users?
false
end
Example target scenario:
- Parent resource:
projects - Parent ID:
1 - Related association:
users - Related user ID to attach:
42 - Expected policy: low-privileged users must not be able to attach users to projects.
The UI/form request may be blocked:
GET /admin/resources/projects/1/users/new
But the direct write endpoint can still be invoked:
POST /admin/resources/projects/1/users
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
authenticity_token=<CSRF>&fields[related_id]=42
Run the attached PoC:
python poc_avo_association_attach_bypass.py \
--base-url http://localhost:3000 \
--avo-root /admin \
--cookie "_app_session=<LOW_PRIVILEGED_SESSION_COOKIE>" \
--parent-resource projects \
--parent-id 1 \
--related-name users \
--related-id 42 \
--check-new
If GET /new is forbidden or redirected but the direct POST succeeds, the authorization bypass is confirmed.
To perform the actual attach:
python poc_avo_association_attach_bypass.py \
--base-url http://localhost:3000 \
--avo-root /admin \
--cookie "_app_session=<LOW_PRIVILEGED_SESSION_COOKIE>" \
--parent-resource projects \
--parent-id 1 \
--related-name users \
--related-id 42 \
--confirm-attach
Expected vulnerable result:
- The low-privileged user can attach the related record despite
attach_<association>?being denied. - The parent record now includes the related record.
Impact
This vulnerability allows unauthorized relationship manipulation through Avo.
Depending on the affected association, the impact can include:
- Privilege escalation by attaching a user to an admin group, privileged project, tenant, organization, role, or membership record.
- Cross-tenant data exposure when tenant/user/project membership determines record visibility.
- Integrity loss by changing ownership, assignment, access-control relationships, or business workflow state.
- Policy bypass even when Avo UI controls correctly hide the attach button or deny the attach form.
Recommended Fix
Enforce attach authorization on the mutating endpoint.
At minimum:
before_action :authorize_attach_action, only: [:new, :create]
Additionally:
- Authorize against the parent record and the selected related record before writing the relationship.
- Ensure
createfails closed whenattach_<association>?is missing andexplicit_authorizationis enabled. - Add regression tests that directly POST to
/resources/:resource_name/:id/:related_namewhileattach_<association>?returnsfalse. - Verify
has_many,has_one,has_many :through, andhas_and_belongs_to_manyassociation paths all enforce the same server-side authorization.
Affected versions
RubyGems
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.
avo RubyGems → 3.32.1
- bundler
bundle update avo # Gemfile: gem "avo", ">= 3.32.1"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 9.6
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-639: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Make sure that the key that is used in the lookup of a specific user's record is not controllable externally by the user or that any tampering can be detected.
- Architecture and Design: Use encryption in order to make it more difficult to guess other legitimate values of the key or associate a digital signature with the key so that the server can verify that there has been no tampering.
CWE-862: Missing Authorization
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
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.
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
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-pqpw-cvm4-8mv9 Avo: Direct attachment upload endpoint lacks upload authorization and bypasses field-level upload policy | Medium | Also affects avo |
| GHSA-qc5p-3mg5-9fh8 Avo: Broken Access Control Through Unauthorized Execution of Arbitrary Action Classes Across Resources | High | Also affects avo |
| GHSA-762r-27w2-q22j Avo has a XSS vulnerability on `return_to` param | Medium | Also affects avo |
| GHSA-g8vp-2v5p-9qfh Cross-site scripting (XSS) in Action messages on Avo | Medium | Also affects avo |
| GHSA-ghjv-mh6x-7q6h avo vulnerable to stored cross-site scripting (XSS) in key_value field | Medium | Also affects avo |
| GHSA-86h2-2g4g-29qx avo possible unsafe reflection / partial DoS vulnerability | High | Also affects avo |
| GHSA-5cr9-5jx3-2g39 avo vulnerable to Stored XSS (Cross Site Scripting) in html content based fields | High | Also affects avo |
| GHSA-w3p3-7cjg-vgfw Keycloak allows unauthorized access to resources via uma permission ticket bypass | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-639 |
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