Capgo (capgo.app) through version 12.261.0 contains an incomplete access-control fix for the public.sso_providers table. Migration 20260826100000_sso_providers_block_direct_active_insert.sql installs a BEFORE UPDATE guard (enforce_sso_provider_client_update_guard()) that freezes only the dns_verified_at, domain, status and enforce_sso columns; provider_id (as well as metadata_url and attribute_mapping) is left writable. Because the table is granted ALL to the anon and authenticated roles with no column-level restriction, and PostgreSQL row-level security policies such as allow_org_admins_update_sso_providers constrain only which row may be updated and not which columns, a user holding the org_admin tier permission org.update_settings can PATCH provider_id over PostgREST to an identity provider under their control. Since provider_id is the trust anchor binding an email domain to an authorized IdP, the attacker can then authenticate through their own IdP while asserting the org owners email; the server-side provider match succeeds and the merge routine attaches the attackers SSO identity to the existing owner account, nulls its password, and deletes its other identities and sessions. This results in vertical privilege escalation from org_admin to org owner/super_admin, account takeover, and lockout of the legitimate owner. Exploitation requires that the target organization has an active SSO provider configured and that the attacker already holds org_admin in that organization. No patched version is available.
Weakness
The system’s authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user’s data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.
Extended Description
Retrieval of a user record occurs in the system based on some key value that is under user control. The key would typically identify a user-related record stored in the system and would be used to lookup that record for presentation to the user. It is likely that an attacker would have to be an authenticated user in the system. However, the authorization process would not properly check the data access operation to ensure that the authenticated user performing the operation has sufficient entitlements to perform the requested data access, hence bypassing any other authorization checks present in the system. For example, attackers can look at places where user specific data is retrieved (e.g. search screens) and determine whether the key for the item being looked up is controllable externally. The key may be a hidden field in the HTML form field, might be passed as a URL parameter or as an unencrypted cookie variable, then in each of these cases it will be possible to tamper with the key value. One manifestation of this weakness is when a system uses sequential or otherwise easily-guessable session IDs that would allow one user to easily switch to another user’s session and read/modify their data.