GHSA-cvw4-55pp-3hfq CVE-2026-55547
Yamcs's Missing Authorization on Role and Privilege Enumeration Endpoints Allows Any Authenticated User to Disclose Full Security Configuration
- Severity
- 4.3 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.34%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 27.77% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Fix
5.13.2- Upgrade org.yamcs:yamcs-core to this version or later
Description
Summary
Missing authorization checks on three IAM API endpoints (GET /api/roles, GET /api/roles/{name}, GET /api/privileges) allow any authenticated user — regardless of their assigned permissions — to enumerate the complete list of system privileges and role definitions. An attacker with only a low-privilege account (e.g., a read-only operator) can retrieve the full privilege taxonomy of the server, including the names and assignments of all administrator-level capabilities. This information directly enables targeted privilege escalation attacks.
Details
Three handler methods in IamApi.java serve sensitive security metadata without performing any authorization check:
File: yamcs-core/src/main/java/org/yamcs/http/api/IamApi.java
// Line 73 — GET /api/roles
@Override
public void listRoles(Context ctx, Empty request, Observer<ListRolesResponse> observer) {
SecurityStore securityStore = YamcsServer.getServer().getSecurityStore();
List<Role> roles = securityStore.getDirectory().getRoles();
// No ctx.checkSystemPrivilege() call — any authenticated user proceeds
...
observer.complete(responseb.build());
}
// Line 87 — GET /api/roles/{name}
@Override
public void getRole(Context ctx, GetRoleRequest request, Observer<RoleInfo> observer) {
SecurityStore securityStore = YamcsServer.getServer().getSecurityStore();
Role role = securityStore.getDirectory().getRole(request.getName());
// No ctx.checkSystemPrivilege() call
observer.complete(toRoleInfo(role));
}
// Line 112 — GET /api/privileges
@Override
public void listPrivileges(Context ctx, Empty request, Observer<ListPrivilegesResponse> observer) {
SecurityStore securityStore = YamcsServer.getServer().getSecurityStore();
List<SystemPrivilege> privileges = new ArrayList<>(securityStore.getSystemPrivileges());
// No ctx.checkSystemPrivilege() call
observer.complete(responseb.build());
}
By contrast, all write operations and user-management endpoints in the same file correctly enforce authorization. For example:
// Line 126 — GET /api/users (correctly protected)
public void listUsers(...) {
ctx.checkSystemPrivilege(SystemPrivilege.ControlAccess); // ← present
...
}
// Line 142 — POST /api/users (correctly protected)
public void createUser(...) {
ctx.checkSystemPrivilege(SystemPrivilege.ControlAccess); // ← present
...
}
The three vulnerable endpoints share the same ControlAccess protection requirement as the user-management endpoints but were never given the corresponding check.
Route definitions (confirmed in yamcs-api/src/main/proto/yamcs/protobuf/iam/iam.proto):
GET /api/privileges → IamApi.listPrivileges()
GET /api/roles → IamApi.listRoles()
GET /api/roles/{name} → IamApi.getRole()
PoC
<img width="2324" height="1086" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/98ec3e81-556d-41e1-9211-10a5b9ad0d59" />
Environment
- Yamcs version: 5.13.1-SNAPSHOT (latest master)
- Auth module: YamlAuthModule (default)
- Two accounts available:
admin(Administrator) andoperator(Operator) - Calculate the Basic Auth credentials for the two accounts (this needs to be done only once). Please modify according to the actual situation. These credentials will be used in subsequent commands. Here, there is a test low-privilege account named "operator" with the password "password".
<img width="2243" height="223" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5614013c-2143-4f61-aba3-eab1cba24b67" />
powershell -command "[Convert]::ToBase64String([Text.Encoding]::ASCII.GetBytes('admin:admin'))"
powershell -command "[Convert]::ToBase64String([Text.Encoding]::ASCII.GetBytes('operator:password'))"
Step 1 — Confirm that protected endpoints correctly return 403 for low-privilege users
curl -s -o nul -w "HTTP %{http_code}" http://localhost:8090/api/users -H "Authorization: Basic b3BlcmF0b3I6cGFzc3dvcmQ="
Expected: HTTP 403 — the user-list endpoint enforces ControlAccess.
Step 2 — Enumerate all system privileges with the operator account
curl -s http://localhost:8090/api/privileges -H "Authorization: Basic b3BlcmF0b3I6cGFzc3dvcmQ="
Actual response (HTTP 200):
C:\Users\20616>curl -s http://localhost:8090/api/privileges -H "Authorization: Basic b3BlcmF0b3I6cGFzc3dvcmQ="
{
"systemPrivileges": ["ChangeMissionDatabase", "CommandOptions", "ControlAccess", "ControlActivities", "ControlAlarms", "ControlArchiving", "ControlCommandClearances", "ControlCommandQueue", "ControlFileTransfers", "ControlLinks", "ControlProcessor", "ControlServices", "ControlTimeCorrelation", "ControlTimeline", "CreateInstances", "GetMissionDatabase", "ManageAnyBucket", "ManageParameterLists", "ModifyCommandHistory", "ReadActivities", "ReadAlarms", "ReadCommandHistory", "ReadEvents", "ReadFileTransfers", "ReadLinks", "ReadSystemInfo", "ReadTables", "ReadTimeline", "WriteEvents", "WriteTables", "web.AccessAdminArea"]
}
The operator account receives the server's complete privilege taxonomy — all 31 system privileges including ControlAccess (full user management) and ChangeMissionDatabase (algorithm-level RCE, see related advisory).
Step 3 — Enumerate all defined roles with the operator account
curl -s http://localhost:8090/api/roles -H "Authorization: Basic b3BlcmF0b3I6cGFzc3dvcmQ="
Actual response (HTTP 200):
C:\Users\20616>curl -s http://localhost:8090/api/roles -H "Authorization: Basic b3BlcmF0b3I6cGFzc3dvcmQ="
{
}
The endpoint returns HTTP 200 (no authorization check triggered). The empty body reflects the test environment: the YamlAuthModule stores role names as plain strings in users.yaml and does not persist Role objects into the security store's Directory. In any Yamcs instance where roles have been created through the REST API (POST /api/roles), this endpoint returns the full role-to-privilege mapping for every defined role.
Step 4 — Attempt to read a specific role by name
curl -s http://localhost:8090/api/roles/Administrator -H "Authorization: Basic b3BlcmF0b3I6cGFzc3dvcmQ="
Actual response:
C:\Users\20616>curl -s http://localhost:8090/api/roles/Administrator -H "Authorization: Basic b3BlcmF0b3I6cGFzc3dvcmQ="
{
"code": 404,
"type": "NotFoundException",
"msg": "Resource not found"
}
The 404 is a business-logic outcome (the role object does not exist in the Directory for this test configuration), not an authorization rejection. The server never checked whether the caller is permitted to read role data — it proceeded to the lookup and returned the lookup result. In a deployment where roles are registered as objects, this endpoint returns their full privilege configuration to any authenticated user.
Observed vs Expected
| Request | Expected | Actual | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
GET /api/users (operator) |
403 | 403 ✓ | Auth check present |
GET /api/privileges (operator) |
403 | 200 ✗ | Confirmed — full privilege list leaked |
GET /api/roles (operator) |
403 | 200 ✗ | Auth check absent; empty only in this test setup |
GET /api/roles/Administrator (operator) |
403 | 404 ✗ | No auth check; 404 = role not in Directory, not access denied |
Impact
Vulnerability type: Broken Function Level Authorization (BFLA) / Missing Authorization (OWASP API Security Top 10 2023: API5)
Who is impacted:
Any deployment of Yamcs that has authentication enabled (the default for production setups) and has more than one user tier. This includes the vast majority of operational Yamcs installations in ground station, satellite operations, and mission control contexts.
Direct impact:
- Any authenticated user, including operators, guest accounts, or service accounts with minimal privileges, can retrieve the server's complete privilege taxonomy and all role-to-privilege mappings.
Chained impact:
The disclosed privilege names and role definitions provide an attacker with a precise roadmap for privilege escalation:
- Identify which privilege grants the capability they need (e.g.,
ChangeMissionDatabasefor RCE via the algorithm engine,ControlAccessfor full user management). - Identify which roles carry that privilege.
- Target the accounts that hold those roles for credential theft, session hijacking, or social engineering.
In mission-critical environments (spacecraft operations, industrial control), unauthorized privilege escalation via this information leak could have safety implications beyond IT security.
Fix
Add ctx.checkSystemPrivilege(SystemPrivilege.ControlAccess) as the first statement in each of the three affected methods, matching the pattern already used by adjacent endpoints in the same file:
// IamApi.java — apply to all three methods
public void listRoles(Context ctx, Empty request, Observer<ListRolesResponse> observer) {
ctx.checkSystemPrivilege(SystemPrivilege.ControlAccess); // ADD THIS LINE
...
}
public void getRole(Context ctx, GetRoleRequest request, Observer<RoleInfo> observer) {
ctx.checkSystemPrivilege(SystemPrivilege.ControlAccess); // ADD THIS LINE
...
}
public void listPrivileges(Context ctx, Empty request, Observer<ListPrivilegesResponse> observer) {
ctx.checkSystemPrivilege(SystemPrivilege.ControlAccess); // ADD THIS LINE
...
}
Affected versions
Maven
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| org.yamcs:yamcs-core | >= 5.13.0, < 5.13.2 |
5.13.2 |
| org.yamcs:yamcs-core | < 5.12.8 |
5.12.8 |
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.
org.yamcs:yamcs-core Maven → 5.13.2
- maven
<dependency><groupId>org.yamcs</groupId><artifactId>yamcs-core</artifactId><version>5.13.2</version></dependency>- gradle
implementation("org.yamcs:yamcs-core:5.13.2")
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 4.3
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-285: Improper Authorization
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs 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) 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 you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply 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.
- 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-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
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-9272-wg2r-7xmx Yamcs has DOM XSS in Extension Routing | Medium | Also affects org.yamcs:yamcs-core |
| GHSA-c64q-hj4j-375f Yamcs vulnerable to authenticated remote code execution via unescaped StreamSQL `LIKE` pattern compiled by Janino (`LikeExpression`) | Critical | Also affects org.yamcs:yamcs-core |
| GHSA-73mf-m39p-wpm9 Yamcs vulnerable to Remote Code Execution via instance-template argument YAML injection (createInstance) | Critical | Also affects org.yamcs:yamcs-core |
| GHSA-9jg3-g3wh-w9pj Yamcs has Unauthenticated Directory Traversal | High | Also affects org.yamcs:yamcs-core |
| GHSA-rxpg-wjf8-qv9c Yamcs has Reflected XSS in the URL of the Authorize Endpoint | Medium | Also affects org.yamcs:yamcs-core |
| GHSA-fwww-cp23-7f5g Yamcs's WebSocket subscription handlers omit the privilege checks their REST siblings enforce | Medium | Also affects org.yamcs:yamcs-core |
| GHSA-962x-ccwf-8x6p Yamcs Core API has Multiple Missing Function Level Access Control vulnerabilities | High | Also affects org.yamcs:yamcs-core |
| GHSA-3g44-3m7x-cgg2 Yamcs vulnerable to authenticated RCE via StreamSQL aggregate-compiler column-name injection in Yamcs `executeSql` | Critical | Also affects org.yamcs:yamcs-core |
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