A security issue was discovered in aws-iam-authenticator where an allow-listed IAM identity may be able to modify their username and escalate privileges.

The Login With OTP Over SMS, Email, WhatsApp and Google Authenticator WordPress plugin before 1.0.8 does not escape its settings, allowing high privilege users such as admin to perform Cross-Site Scripting attacks even when the unfiltered_html is disallowed

The miniOrange's Google Authenticator WordPress plugin before 5.5.6 does not sanitise and escape some of its settings, leading to malicious users with administrator privileges to store malicious Javascript code leading to Cross-Site Scripting attacks when unfiltered_html is disallowed (for example in multisite setup)

The Google Authenticator WordPress plugin before 1.0.5 does not have CSRF check when saving its settings, and does not sanitise as well as escape them, allowing attackers to make a logged in admin change them and perform Cross-Site Scripting attacks

OAuthenticator is an OAuth token library for the JupyerHub login handler. CILogonOAuthenticator is provided by the OAuthenticator package, and lets users log in to a JupyterHub via CILogon. This is primarily used to restrict a JupyterHub only to users of a given institute. The allowed_idps configuration trait of CILogonOAuthenticator is documented to be a list of domains that indicate the institutions whose users are authorized to access this JupyterHub. This authorization is validated by ensuring that the *email* field provided to us by CILogon has a *domain* that matches one of the domains listed in `allowed_idps`.If `allowed_idps` contains `berkeley.edu`, you might expect only users with valid current credentials provided by University of California, Berkeley to be able to access the JupyterHub. However, CILogonOAuthenticator does *not* verify which provider is used by the user to login, only the email address provided. So a user can login with a GitHub account that has email set t…

An insecure data storage vulnerability allows a physical attacker with root privileges to retrieve TOTP secret keys from unlocked phones in Sophos Authenticator for Android version 3.4 and older, and Intercept X for Mobile (Android) before version 9.7.3495.

An improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command vulnerability in the command line interpreter of FortiAuthenticator before 6.3.1 may allow an authenticated attacker to execute unauthorized commands via specifically crafted arguments to existing commands.

The miniOrange's Google Authenticator WordPress plugin before 5.5 does not have proper authorisation and CSRF checks when handling the reconfigureMethod, and does not validate the parameters passed to it properly. As a result, unauthenticated users could delete arbitrary options from the blog, making it unusable.

An improper access control vulnerability [CWE-284] in FortiAuthenticator HA service 6.3.2 and below, 6.2.x, 6.1.x, 6.0.x may allow an attacker on the same vlan as the HA management interface to make an unauthenticated direct connection to the FAC's database.

A improper authentication in Fortinet FortiAuthenticator version 6.4.0 allows user to bypass the second factor of authentication via a RADIUS login portal.