Summary
LogicalDOC Community Edition contains a missing authorization vulnerability in document service operations exposed through SOAP and REST interfaces. An authenticated user may access or modify documents they are not authorized to manage, potentially causing disclosure, deletion, or tampering when document identifiers can be enumerated.
LogicalDOC Community Edition contains a missing authorization vulnerability in document service operations exposed through SOAP and REST interfaces. An authenticated user may access or modify documents they are not authorized to manage, potentially causing disclosure, deletion, or tampering when document identifiers can be enumerated.
Affected context
The issue may affect LogicalDOC deployments where authenticated users can reach the affected document service operations through SOAP or /services/rest/document. Risk is higher when document identifiers are predictable or sequential and authorization checks are not consistently applied to operations such as copying, text extraction, version deletion, reindexing, link deletion, and restoration.
The issue may affect LogicalDOC deployments where authenticated users can reach the affected document service operations through SOAP or /services/rest/document. Risk is higher when document identifiers are predictable or sequential and authorization checks are not consistently applied to operations such as copying, text extraction, version deletion, reindexing, link deletion, and restoration.
Exploit preconditions
- Attack surface: SOAP document services and the
/services/rest/documentendpoint - Required access: An authenticated LogicalDOC account with access to the relevant service interface
- Trigger point: Document operations that accept or resolve document identifiers
- Why exploitation is possible: Server-side authorization may not be checked against the requested document, allowing an authenticated user to target documents outside their permitted scope
- Attack surface: SOAP document services and the
/services/rest/documentendpoint - Required access: An authenticated LogicalDOC account with access to the relevant service interface
- Trigger point: Document operations that accept or resolve document identifiers
- Why exploitation is possible: Server-side authorization may not be checked against the requested document, allowing an authenticated user to target documents outside their permitted scope
Why this happens
The underlying flaw is an authorization enforcement gap in document service operations.
The application appears to authenticate users but does not consistently verify that the requesting principal has permission to access or modify each referenced document. This maps to CWE-862: Missing Authorization, in which a protected operation can be reached without an effective authorization decision for the target resource.
The underlying flaw is an authorization enforcement gap in document service operations.
The application appears to authenticate users but does not consistently verify that the requesting principal has permission to access or modify each referenced document. This maps to CWE-862: Missing Authorization, in which a protected operation can be reached without an effective authorization decision for the target resource.
Potential impact
- Unauthorized users may disclose document contents or extracted text
- Attackers could delete document versions, links, or other document data
- Documents may be copied, reindexed, or restored without appropriate permission
- An attacker could tamper with document integrity or disrupt business workflows
- Sensitive information may be exposed across tenant or user boundaries
- Unauthorized users may disclose document contents or extracted text
- Attackers could delete document versions, links, or other document data
- Documents may be copied, reindexed, or restored without appropriate permission
- An attacker could tamper with document integrity or disrupt business workflows
- Sensitive information may be exposed across tenant or user boundaries
General mitigation guidance
Mitigation generally focuses on enforcing resource-level authorization for every document operation, regardless of whether the request arrives through SOAP or REST.
Common defensive patterns include:
- Applying centralized, deny-by-default authorization checks to every document identifier
- Verifying ownership, role, tenant, and document-level permissions before read or write operations
- Avoiding reliance on sequential identifiers as an access-control boundary
- Returning responses that do not disclose unauthorized resource existence or content
- Restricting destructive operations through least-privilege roles and explicit policy decisions
- Applying consistent authorization middleware across all equivalent service interfaces
Mitigation generally focuses on enforcing resource-level authorization for every document operation, regardless of whether the request arrives through SOAP or REST.
Common defensive patterns include:
- Applying centralized, deny-by-default authorization checks to every document identifier
- Verifying ownership, role, tenant, and document-level permissions before read or write operations
- Avoiding reliance on sequential identifiers as an access-control boundary
- Returning responses that do not disclose unauthorized resource existence or content
- Restricting destructive operations through least-privilege roles and explicit policy decisions
- Applying consistent authorization middleware across all equivalent service interfaces
How teams detect issues like this
Organizations can identify missing authorization risks through:
- Static analysis and code review checks for service methods that access resources without nearby permission enforcement
- Tests that compare authorized, unauthorized, and cross-tenant access for every document operation
- API inventory reviews covering SOAP actions and REST routes that expose the same functionality
- Monitoring for authenticated accounts accessing large ranges of document identifiers or receiving repeated authorization failures
- Policy enforcement requiring resource-level authorization tests for read, write, delete, restore, and administrative operations
Automated application security testing and authorization-focused review tools may help identify inconsistent access-control behavior.
Organizations can identify missing authorization risks through:
- Static analysis and code review checks for service methods that access resources without nearby permission enforcement
- Tests that compare authorized, unauthorized, and cross-tenant access for every document operation
- API inventory reviews covering SOAP actions and REST routes that expose the same functionality
- Monitoring for authenticated accounts accessing large ranges of document identifiers or receiving repeated authorization failures
- Policy enforcement requiring resource-level authorization tests for read, write, delete, restore, and administrative operations
Automated application security testing and authorization-focused review tools may help identify inconsistent access-control behavior.
