Skip to content

GHSA-8ghr-w65f-j3qr CVE-2026-47721

FUXA's scheduler API missing admin check enables operator-to-admin escalation via scheduled device actions

Medium npm
Severity
6.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.43%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 37.74% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
None yet
No fixed version published

Description

Summary

An authorization issue in the Scheduler API allowed authenticated non-admin users to create or modify scheduled actions that should be restricted to administrators.

Details

The Scheduler API did not correctly enforce administrator permissions when processing scheduler modifications.

As a result, authenticated users with non-administrative roles could create or modify scheduled actions that execute privileged operations, including device value changes and server-side script execution.

The issue was fixed in version 1.3.2 by enforcing the appropriate permission checks for scheduler modifications.

Impact

An operator-level user in FUXA reaches the PLC-write and server-side-script-execution surface that the platform otherwise restricts to administrators. In a SCADA deployment those two privileges cover setpoint control and the automation scripting engine. Alice schedules a job that rewrites a pump's enable tag, opens a safety interlock, or runs a project script that walks the device tree. The scheduled-action model extends the attack: Alice does not need to keep a session open for the action to fire, and a repeating schedule re-applies her changes every cycle even if an admin reverts them manually.

CVSS 3.1: AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L (Medium, 6.3). CWE-862.

Recommended Fix

Add authJwt.haveAdminPermission(permission) to both POST /api/scheduler and DELETE /api/scheduler, matching every other write endpoint that reaches runtime.devices.setTagValue or runtime.scriptsMgr.runScript.

schedulerApp.post("/api/scheduler", secureFnc, function(req, res) {
    if (res.statusCode === 403) {
        runtime.logger.error("api post scheduler: Tocken Expired");
        return;
    }
    const permission = checkGroupsFnc(req);
    const isGuest = authJwt.isGuestUser(req.userId, req.userGroups);
    if (runtime.settings?.secureEnabled && (isGuest || !authJwt.haveAdminPermission(permission))) {
        res.status(401).json({error:"unauthorized_error", message: "Unauthorized!"});
        runtime.logger.error("api post scheduler: admin permission required");
        return;
    }
    // ... rest unchanged ...
});

Apply the same change to the delete handler at server/api/scheduler/index.js:102-112. As defense in depth, the scheduler service should also validate each deviceActions entry against the creator's stored groups before execution (e.g., reject onRunScript on any scheduler whose author is not an admin at execution time).


A fix is available at https://github.com/frangoteam/FUXA/releases/tag/v1.3.2.


Found by aisafe.io

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
fuxa-server
<= 1.1.14-1243
No fix yet

How to fix

No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 6.3

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

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

Weakness

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.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-h9fj-c2qr-76g2
FUXA has SQL Injection in its TDengine DAQ connector via backslash bypass of escapeTdString
Medium Also affects fuxa-server
GHSA-w86f-rf9w-h3x6
FUXA: Unauthenticated SSRF via Socket.IO DEVICE_WEBAPI_REQUEST and DEVICE_PROPERTY with response reading
High Also affects fuxa-server
GHSA-r9g5-7q8j-958c
FUXA provides guest and invalid-token access to protected read APIs in secure mode
Medium Also affects fuxa-server
GHSA-q3w6-q3hc-c5x6
FUXA's Unauthenticated Project Data Disclosure Exposes Server-Side Scripts and Device Configurations
High Also affects fuxa-server
GHSA-rg3m-cfq7-g6h6
FUXA Vulnerable to Unauthenticated Remote Code Execution via Script Test Mode Authorization Bypass
High Also affects fuxa-server
GHSA-fwcm-rqvw-j3p7
FUXA has an unauthenticated arbitrary tag value disclosure via /api/getTagValue
High Also affects fuxa-server
GHSA-68m5-5w2h-h837
FUXA Affected by a Path Traversal Sanitization Bypass
High Also affects fuxa-server
GHSA-c869-jx4c-q5fc
FUXA Unauthenticated Remote Arbitrary Scheduler Write
Critical Also affects fuxa-server
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