cvekit
LIVE
ATT&CK matrix

T1528

Steal Application Access Token

9 CVEs mapped
TA0006Credential Access
Adversaries can steal application access tokens as a means of acquiring credentials to access remote systems and resources. Application access tokens are used to make authorized API requests on behalf of a user or service and are commonly used as a way to access resources in cloud and container-based applications and software-as-a-service (SaaS).(Citation: Auth0 - Why You Should Always Use Access Tokens to Secure APIs Sept 2019) Adversaries who steal account API tokens in cloud and containerized environments may be able to access data and perform actions with the permissions of these accounts, which can lead to privilege escalation and further compromise of the environment. For example, in Kubernetes environments, processes running inside a container may communicate with the Kubernetes API server using service account tokens. If a container is compromised, an adversary may be able to steal the container’s token and thereby gain access to Kubernetes API commands.(Citation: Kubernetes Service Accounts) Similarly, instances within continuous-development / continuous-integration (CI/CD) pipelines will often use API tokens to authenticate to other services for testing and deployment.(Citation: Cider Security Top 10 CICD Security Risks) If these pipelines are compromised, adversaries may be able to steal these tokens and leverage their privileges. In Azure, an adversary who compromises a resource with an attached Managed Identity, such as an Azure VM, can request short-lived tokens through the Azure Instance Metadata Service (IMDS). These tokens can then facilitate unauthorized actions or further access to other Azure services, bypassing typical credential-based authentication.(Citation: Entra Managed Identities 2025)(Citation: SpecterOps Managed Identity 2022) Token theft can also occur through social engineering, in which case user action may be required to grant access. OAuth is one commonly implemented framework that issues tokens to users for access to systems. An application desiring access to cloud-based services or protected APIs can gain entry using OAuth 2.0 through a variety of authorization protocols. An example commonly-used sequence is Microsoft's Authorization Code Grant flow.(Citation: Microsoft Identity Platform Protocols May 2019)(Citation: Microsoft - OAuth Code Authorization flow - June 2019) An OAuth access token enables a third-party application to interact with resources containing user data in the ways requested by the application without obtaining user credentials. Adversaries can leverage OAuth authorization by constructing a malicious application designed to be granted access to resources with the target user's OAuth token.(Citation: Amnesty OAuth Phishing Attacks, August 2019)(Citation: Trend Micro Pawn Storm OAuth 2017) The adversary will need to complete registration of their application with the authorization server, for example Microsoft Identity Platform using Azure Portal, the Visual Studio IDE, the command-line interface, PowerShell, or REST API calls.(Citation: Microsoft - Azure AD App Registration - May 2019) Then, they can send a [Spearphishing Link](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1566/002) to the target user to entice them to grant access to the application. Once the OAuth access token is granted, the application can gain potentially long-term access to features of the user account through [Application Access Token](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1550/001).(Citation: Microsoft - Azure AD Identity Tokens - Aug 2019) Application access tokens may function within a limited lifetime, limiting how long an adversary can utilize the stolen token. However, in some cases, adversaries can also steal application refresh tokens(Citation: Auth0 Understanding Refresh Tokens), allowing them to obtain new access tokens without prompting the user.

Platforms5

ContainersIaaSIdentity ProviderOffice SuiteSaaS

CVEs mapped to this technique9

CVEDescriptionSeverityEPSSFlagsModified
CVE-2015-8562

Joomla! 1.5.x, 2.x, and 3.x before 3.4.6 allow remote attackers to conduct PHP object injection attacks and execute arbitrary PHP code via the HTTP User-Agent header, as exploited in the wild in December 2015.

NONE
98%p100
Weaponized
2026-06-17
CVE-2020-11651

An issue was discovered in SaltStack Salt before 2019.2.4 and 3000 before 3000.2. The salt-master process ClearFuncs class does not properly validate method calls. This allows a remote user to access some methods without authentication. These methods can be used to retrieve user tokens from the salt master and/or run arbitrary commands on salt minions.

CRITICAL9.8
97%p100
KEVWeaponized
2026-06-17
CVE-2026-20182

May 2026: This security advisory provides the details and fix information for a vulnerability that was discovered and fixed after the was disclosed in February 2026. This new advisory is for a new vulnerability in the control connection handshaking. The section of this advisory includes Show Control Connections guidance to help with system checks.  A vulnerability in the peering authentication in Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Controller, formerly SD-WAN vSmart, Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Manager, formerly SD-WAN vManage, and Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Validator, formerly SD-WAN vBond, could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to bypass authentication and obtain administrative privileges on an affected system. This vulnerability exists because the peering authentication mechanism in an affected system is not working properly. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted requests to the affected system. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to log in to an affected Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Controller as an internal, high-privileged, non-root user account. Using this account, the attacker could access NETCONF, which would then allow the attacker to manipulate network configuration for the SD-WAN fabric.

CRITICAL10.0
90%p100
KEVFunctional
2026-06-17
CVE-2026-20230

A vulnerability in Cisco Unified Communications Manager (Unified CM) and Cisco Unified Communications Manager Session Management Edition (Unified CM SME) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct server-side request forgery (SSRF) attacks through an affected device. This vulnerability is due to improper input validation for specific HTTP requests. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted HTTP request to an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to write files to the underlying operating system that could be used later to elevate to root. Note: Cisco has assigned this security advisory a Security Impact Rating (SIR) of Critical rather than High as the score indicates. The reason is that exploitation of this vulnerability could result in an attacker elevating privileges to root. Note: To exploit this vulnerability, the WebDialer service must be enabled. WebDialer is disabled by default.

HIGH8.6
83%p100
KEVPoC
2026-07-22
CVE-2013-5054

Microsoft Office 2013 and 2013 RT allows remote attackers to discover authentication tokens via a crafted response to a file-open request for an Office file on a web site, as exploited in the wild in 2013, aka "Token Hijacking Vulnerability."

NONE
13%p96
2026-06-16
CVE-2026-42897

Improper neutralization of input during web page generation ('cross-site scripting') in Microsoft Exchange Server allows an unauthorized attacker to perform spoofing over a network.

MEDIUM6.1
5.64%p92
KEVPoC
2026-06-19
CVE-2020-0884

A spoofing vulnerability exists in Microsoft Visual Studio as it includes a reply URL that is not secured by SSL, aka 'Microsoft Visual Studio Spoofing Vulnerability'.

LOW3.7
1.67%p74
2026-06-17
CVE-2020-5300

In Hydra (an OAuth2 Server and OpenID Certified™ OpenID Connect Provider written in Go), before version 1.4.0+oryOS.17, when using client authentication method 'private_key_jwt' [1], OpenId specification says the following about assertion `jti`: "A unique identifier for the token, which can be used to prevent reuse of the token. These tokens MUST only be used once, unless conditions for reuse were negotiated between the parties". Hydra does not check the uniqueness of this `jti` value. Exploiting this vulnerability is somewhat difficult because: - TLS protects against MITM which makes it difficult to intercept valid tokens for replay attacks - The expiry time of the JWT gives only a short window of opportunity where it could be replayed This has been patched in version v1.4.0+oryOS.17

MEDIUM5.3
1.03%p60
2026-06-17
CVE-2018-18641

An issue was discovered in GitLab Community and Enterprise Edition before 11.2.7, 11.3.x before 11.3.8, and 11.4.x before 11.4.3. It has Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information.

NONE
0.93%p57
2026-06-17