VulnerabilityPublished 30 May 2025Updated 3 Dec 2025

CVE-2024-7096: WSO2 Open Banking IAM · Incorrect Authorization

Affects WSO2 Open Banking IAMSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.2 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.2Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 54% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 30 May 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Mavenorg.wso2.openbanking/iam`pkg:maven/org.wso2.openbanking/iam`Other threats	Affected =2.0.0	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-7096, European organizations should: 1) Restrict network access to SOAP admin services strictly to trusted administrators and internal systems, using network segmentation, firewalls, and VPNs. 2) Audit all custom roles and permissions to ensure they follow the principle of least privilege and remove unnecessary custom roles. 3) Review and minimize the use of internally used attributes that deviate from default WSO2 configurations, documenting and securing them. 4) Implement monitoring and alerting for unusual user creation or privilege assignment activities within the IAM system. 5) Engage with WSO2 for any available patches or updates addressing this vulnerability and apply them promptly once released. 6) Conduct regular security assessments and penetration tests focusing on business logic flaws in IAM services. 7) Educate administrators about the risks of exposing SOAP admin services and enforce strict access control policies. These targeted measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on the specific conditions enabling exploitation.

Description

A privilege escalation vulnerability exists in multiple WSO2 products due to a business logic flaw in SOAP admin services. A malicious actor can create a new user with elevated permissions only when all of the following conditions are met: * SOAP admin services are accessible to the attacker. * The deployment includes an internally used attribute that is not part of the default WSO2 product configuration. * At least one custom role exists with non-default permissions. * The attacker has knowledge of the custom role and the internal attribute used in the deployment. Exploiting this vulnerability allows malicious actors to assign higher privileges to self-registered users, bypassing intended access control mechanisms.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those in the financial sector using WSO2 Open Banking IAM, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized privilege escalation, allowing attackers to gain elevated access rights. This could result in unauthorized access to sensitive identity and access management functions, potentially compromising customer data, transaction integrity, and regulatory compliance. The impact on confidentiality and integrity is low to moderate, but the risk of privilege abuse could facilitate further attacks or fraud. Given the high attack complexity and requirement for specific knowledge and network access, the threat is somewhat limited but still significant for organizations with exposed SOAP admin services and custom configurations. Exploitation could undermine trust in open banking platforms and lead to financial and reputational damage. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers may develop exploits targeting these conditions.

CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
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.
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.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

security.docs.wso2.com/en/latest/security-announcements/security-advisories/2024/WSO2-2024-3573/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Dec 2025, 08:08 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats