Summary
Wukong AICRM contains a missing authorization vulnerability in the systemConfig controller that allows any authenticated user to access the stored AI provider API key. An attacker may retrieve the cleartext key or cause it to be forwarded to an attacker-controlled URL through the AI testing functionality.
Wukong AICRM contains a missing authorization vulnerability in the systemConfig controller that allows any authenticated user to access the stored AI provider API key. An attacker may retrieve the cleartext key or cause it to be forwarded to an attacker-controlled URL through the AI testing functionality.
Affected context
The issue occurs in Wukong AICRM deployments where authenticated users can reach the systemConfig endpoints without authorization checks that limit access by role or administrative privilege. It is particularly risky when the application stores AI provider credentials in a retrievable form and exposes functionality that uses a caller-supplied API destination.
The issue occurs in Wukong AICRM deployments where authenticated users can reach the systemConfig endpoints without authorization checks that limit access by role or administrative privilege. It is particularly risky when the application stores AI provider credentials in a retrievable form and exposes functionality that uses a caller-supplied API destination.
Exploit preconditions
- Attack surface: The
/systemConfigcontroller and its AI-related endpoints - Required access: A valid authenticated account; elevated privileges may not be required
- Trigger point: Requests to retrieve the AI configuration or invoke the AI provider test function
- Why exploitation is possible: Authorization checks do not adequately restrict access to sensitive configuration data or prevent unauthorized use of stored credentials
- Attack surface: The
/systemConfigcontroller and its AI-related endpoints - Required access: A valid authenticated account; elevated privileges may not be required
- Trigger point: Requests to retrieve the AI configuration or invoke the AI provider test function
- Why exploitation is possible: Authorization checks do not adequately restrict access to sensitive configuration data or prevent unauthorized use of stored credentials
Why this happens
The underlying flaw is an authorization design failure in which authentication is treated as sufficient permission to access sensitive system configuration. The affected controller does not consistently enforce role- or resource-based authorization before returning the stored provider key or using it with a caller-selected destination. This behavior maps to CWE-862, Missing Authorization, because a protected operation lacks an effective permission check after the user has authenticated.
The underlying flaw is an authorization design failure in which authentication is treated as sufficient permission to access sensitive system configuration. The affected controller does not consistently enforce role- or resource-based authorization before returning the stored provider key or using it with a caller-selected destination. This behavior maps to CWE-862, Missing Authorization, because a protected operation lacks an effective permission check after the user has authenticated.
Potential impact
- An attacker could obtain an AI provider API key
- Exposed credentials may be reused against the provider
- The key could be forwarded to an attacker-controlled host
- Unauthorized API usage could incur financial or quota-related costs
- Compromised provider credentials could enable data exposure or service abuse
- An attacker could obtain an AI provider API key
- Exposed credentials may be reused against the provider
- The key could be forwarded to an attacker-controlled host
- Unauthorized API usage could incur financial or quota-related costs
- Compromised provider credentials could enable data exposure or service abuse
General mitigation guidance
Mitigation generally focuses on enforcing authorization at every sensitive
controller action rather than relying on authentication alone.
Common defensive patterns include:
- Restricting credential retrieval and provider testing to explicitly authorized administrative roles
- Returning masked or non-reversible credential representations instead of cleartext secrets
- Keeping provider credentials in a dedicated secret-management facility
- Allowing outbound requests only to approved provider destinations
- Separating configuration management permissions from ordinary application access
- Applying least privilege to both application accounts and stored provider credentials
- Avoiding designs that accept arbitrary destinations when making credential-bearing requests
Mitigation generally focuses on enforcing authorization at every sensitive
controller action rather than relying on authentication alone.
Common defensive patterns include:
- Restricting credential retrieval and provider testing to explicitly authorized administrative roles
- Returning masked or non-reversible credential representations instead of cleartext secrets
- Keeping provider credentials in a dedicated secret-management facility
- Allowing outbound requests only to approved provider destinations
- Separating configuration management permissions from ordinary application access
- Applying least privilege to both application accounts and stored provider credentials
- Avoiding designs that accept arbitrary destinations when making credential-bearing requests
How teams detect issues like this
Organizations can look for:
- Static analysis rules identifying controller methods that expose secrets without authorization annotations or checks
- Code review signals such as direct returns of API keys from configuration objects
- Tests that exercise sensitive endpoints with authenticated users lacking administrative roles
- Runtime monitoring for unusual access to system configuration routes
- Egress policies and alerts for requests from the application to unapproved destinations
- Secret-scanning and API-usage monitoring for leaked or unexpectedly used provider keys
Automated security testing and code review tools can help identify missing
authorization checks and sensitive-data exposure patterns.
Organizations can look for:
- Static analysis rules identifying controller methods that expose secrets without authorization annotations or checks
- Code review signals such as direct returns of API keys from configuration objects
- Tests that exercise sensitive endpoints with authenticated users lacking administrative roles
- Runtime monitoring for unusual access to system configuration routes
- Egress policies and alerts for requests from the application to unapproved destinations
- Secret-scanning and API-usage monitoring for leaked or unexpectedly used provider keys
Automated security testing and code review tools can help identify missing
authorization checks and sensitive-data exposure patterns.
