Skip to content

CWE-285: Improper Authorization

AbstractionStructureStatus
NoneSimpleDraft

Description

The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

Extended Description

Assuming a user with a given identity, authorization is the process of determining whether that user can access a given resource, based on the user’s privileges and any permissions or other access-control specifications that apply to the resource.

When access control checks are not applied consistently - or not at all - users are able to access data or perform actions that they should not be allowed to perform. This can lead to a wide range of problems, including information exposures, denial of service, and arbitrary code execution.

Alternate Terms

  • AuthZ: “AuthZ” is typically used as an abbreviation of “authorization” within the web application security community. It is distinct from “AuthN” (or, sometimes, “AuthC”) which is an abbreviation of “authentication.” The use of “Auth” as an abbreviation is discouraged, since it could be used for either authentication or authorization.
NatureIDView IDName
ChildOfCWE-2841000Improper Access Control
ChildOfCWE-2841340Improper Access Control

Background Details

An access control list (ACL) represents who/what has permissions to a given object. Different operating systems implement (ACLs) in different ways. In UNIX, there are three types of permissions: read, write, and execute. Users are divided into three classes for file access: owner, group owner, and all other users where each class has a separate set of rights. In Windows NT, there are four basic types of permissions for files: “No access”, “Read access”, “Change access”, and “Full control”. Windows NT extends the concept of three types of users in UNIX to include a list of users and groups along with their associated permissions. A user can create an object (file) and assign specified permissions to that object.

Modes of Introduction

PhaseNote
Implementation

|Architecture and Design|

|Operation| -

Applicable Platforms

Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific

Technologies

Class: None Class: None

Likelihood Of Exploit

High

Common Consequences

ScopeImpactNote
ConfidentialityRead Application Data, Read Files or DirectoriesAn attacker could read sensitive data, either by reading the data directly from a data store that is not properly restricted, or by accessing insufficiently-protected, privileged functionality to read the data.
IntegrityModify Application Data, Modify Files or DirectoriesAn attacker could modify sensitive data, either by writing the data directly to a data store that is not properly restricted, or by accessing insufficiently-protected, privileged functionality to write the data.
Access ControlGain Privileges or Assume IdentityAn attacker could gain privileges by modifying or reading critical data directly, or by accessing insufficiently-protected, privileged functionality.

Detection Methods

Automated Static Analysis

Automated static analysis is useful for detecting commonly-used idioms for authorization. A tool may be able to analyze related configuration files, such as .htaccess in Apache web servers, or detect the usage of commonly-used authorization libraries.

Generally, automated static analysis tools have difficulty detecting custom authorization schemes. In addition, the software’s design may include some functionality that is accessible to any user and does not require an authorization check; an automated technique that detects the absence of authorization may report false positives.

Effectiveness: Limited

Automated Dynamic Analysis

Automated dynamic analysis may find many or all possible interfaces that do not require authorization, but manual analysis is required to determine if the lack of authorization violates business logic

Manual Analysis

This weakness can be detected using tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session.

Specifically, manual static analysis is useful for evaluating the correctness of custom authorization mechanisms.

Effectiveness: Moderate

Note: These may be more effective than strictly automated techniques. This is especially the case with weaknesses that are related to design and business rules. However, manual efforts might not achieve desired code coverage within limited time constraints.

Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:

  • Binary / Bytecode disassembler - then use manual analysis for vulnerabilities & anomalies

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial

Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:

  • Web Application Scanner
  • Web Services Scanner
  • Database Scanners

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial

Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:

  • Host Application Interface Scanner
  • Fuzz Tester
  • Framework-based Fuzzer
  • Forced Path Execution
  • Monitored Virtual Environment - run potentially malicious code in sandbox / wrapper / virtual machine, see if it does anything suspicious

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial

Manual Static Analysis - Source Code

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:

  • Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source
  • Manual Source Code Review (not inspections)

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial

Automated Static Analysis - Source Code

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:

  • Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial

Architecture or Design Review

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:

  • Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction

Cost effective for partial coverage:

  • Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.)

Effectiveness: High

Potential Mitigations

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.

Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.

Architecture and Design

Ensure that you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient’s doctor.

Architecture and Design

Strategy: 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.

For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].

Architecture and Design

For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page.

One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.

System Configuration

Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a “default deny” policy when defining these ACLs.

Observed Examples

  • CVE-2022-24730: Go-based continuous deployment product does not check that a user has certain privileges to update or create an app, allowing adversaries to read sensitive repository information
  • CVE-2009-3168: Web application does not restrict access to admin scripts, allowing authenticated users to reset administrative passwords.
  • CVE-2009-2960: Web application does not restrict access to admin scripts, allowing authenticated users to modify passwords of other users.
  • CVE-2009-3597: Web application stores database file under the web root with insufficient access control (CWE-219), allowing direct request.
  • CVE-2009-2282: Terminal server does not check authorization for guest access.
  • CVE-2009-3230: Database server does not use appropriate privileges for certain sensitive operations.
  • CVE-2009-2213: Gateway uses default “Allow” configuration for its authorization settings.
  • CVE-2009-0034: Chain: product does not properly interpret a configuration option for a system group, allowing users to gain privileges.
  • CVE-2008-6123: Chain: SNMP product does not properly parse a configuration option for which hosts are allowed to connect, allowing unauthorized IP addresses to connect.
  • CVE-2008-5027: System monitoring software allows users to bypass authorization by creating custom forms.
  • CVE-2008-7109: Chain: reliance on client-side security (CWE-602) allows attackers to bypass authorization using a custom client.
  • CVE-2008-3424: Chain: product does not properly handle wildcards in an authorization policy list, allowing unintended access.
  • CVE-2009-3781: Content management system does not check access permissions for private files, allowing others to view those files.
  • CVE-2008-4577: ACL-based protection mechanism treats negative access rights as if they are positive, allowing bypass of intended restrictions.
  • CVE-2008-6548: Product does not check the ACL of a page accessed using an “include” directive, allowing attackers to read unauthorized files.
  • CVE-2007-2925: Default ACL list for a DNS server does not set certain ACLs, allowing unauthorized DNS queries.
  • CVE-2006-6679: Product relies on the X-Forwarded-For HTTP header for authorization, allowing unintended access by spoofing the header.
  • CVE-2005-3623: OS kernel does not check for a certain privilege before setting ACLs for files.
  • CVE-2005-2801: Chain: file-system code performs an incorrect comparison (CWE-697), preventing default ACLs from being properly applied.
  • CVE-2001-1155: Chain: product does not properly check the result of a reverse DNS lookup because of operator precedence (CWE-783), allowing bypass of DNS-based access restrictions.