CWE-287: Improper Authentication

Description

When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.

Alternate Terms

• authentification: An alternate term is “authentification”, which appears to be most commonly used by people from non-English-speaking countries.
• AuthN: “AuthN” is typically used as an abbreviation of “authentication” within the web application security community. It is also distinct from “AuthZ,” which is an abbreviation of “authorization.” The use of “Auth” as an abbreviation is discouraged, since it could be used for either authentication or authorization.
• AuthC: “AuthC” is used as an abbreviation of “authentication,” but it appears to used less frequently than “AuthN.”

Related Weaknesses

Modes of Introduction

Applicable Platforms

Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific

Technologies

Class: Not Technology-Specific Class: Web Based Class: ICS/OT

Likelihood Of Exploit

High

Common Consequences

Detection Methods

Automated Static Analysis

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

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

Effectiveness: Limited

Manual Static 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.

Manual static analysis is useful for evaluating the correctness of custom authentication mechanisms.

Effectiveness: High

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.

Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode

According to SOAR [REF-1479], 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 [REF-1479], 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 [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:

• Fuzz Tester
• Framework-based Fuzzer

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial

Manual Static Analysis - Source Code

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:

• Manual Source Code Review (not inspections)

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial

Automated Static Analysis - Source Code

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:

• Source code Weakness Analyzer
• Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial

Automated Static Analysis

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:

• Configuration Checker

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial

Architecture or Design Review

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:

• Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.)
• Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction

Effectiveness: High

Potential Mitigations

Architecture and Design

Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks

Use an authentication framework or library such as the OWASP ESAPI Authentication feature.

Observed Examples

• CVE-2024-11680: File-sharing PHP product does not check if user is logged in during requests for PHP library files under an includes/ directory, allowing configuration changes, code execution, and other impacts.
• CVE-2022-35248: Chat application skips validation when Central Authentication Service (CAS) is enabled, effectively removing the second factor from two-factor authentication
• CVE-2022-36436: Python-based authentication proxy does not enforce password authentication during the initial handshake, allowing the client to bypass authentication by specifying a ‘None’ authentication type.
• CVE-2022-30034: Chain: Web UI for a Python RPC framework does not use regex anchors to validate user login emails (CWE-777), potentially allowing bypass of OAuth (CWE-1390).
• CVE-2022-29951: TCP-based protocol in Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) has no authentication.
• CVE-2022-29952: Condition Monitor uses a protocol that does not require authentication.
• CVE-2022-30313: Safety Instrumented System uses proprietary TCP protocols with no authentication.
• CVE-2022-30317: Distributed Control System (DCS) uses a protocol that has no authentication.
• CVE-2022-33139: SCADA system only uses client-side authentication, allowing adversaries to impersonate other users.
• CVE-2021-3116: Chain: Python-based HTTP Proxy server uses the wrong boolean operators (CWE-480) causing an incorrect comparison (CWE-697) that identifies an authN failure if all three conditions are met instead of only one, allowing bypass of the proxy authentication (CWE-1390)
• CVE-2021-21972: Chain: Cloud computing virtualization platform does not require authentication for upload of a tar format file (CWE-306), then uses .. path traversal sequences (CWE-23) in the file to access unexpected files, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV.
• CVE-2021-37415: IT management product does not perform authentication for some REST API requests, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV.
• CVE-2021-35033: Firmware for a WiFi router uses a hard-coded password for a BusyBox shell, allowing bypass of authentication through the UART port
• CVE-2020-10263: Bluetooth speaker does not require authentication for the debug functionality on the UART port, allowing root shell access
• CVE-2020-13927: Default setting in workflow management product allows all API requests without authentication, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV.
• CVE-2021-35395: Stack-based buffer overflows in SFK for wifi chipset used for IoT/embedded devices, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV.
• CVE-2021-34523: Mail server does not properly check an access token before executing a Powershell command, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV.
• CVE-2020-12812: Chain: user is not prompted for a second authentication factor (CWE-287) when changing the case of their username (CWE-178), as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV.
• CVE-2020-10148: Authentication bypass by appending specific parameters and values to a URI, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV.
• CVE-2020-0688: Mail server does not generate a unique key during installation, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV.
• CVE-2017-14623: LDAP Go package allows authentication bypass using an empty password, causing an unauthenticated LDAP bind
• CVE-2009-3421: login script for guestbook allows bypassing authentication by setting a “login_ok” parameter to 1.
• CVE-2009-2382: admin script allows authentication bypass by setting a cookie value to “LOGGEDIN”.
• CVE-2009-1048: VOIP product allows authentication bypass using 127.0.0.1 in the Host header.
• CVE-2009-2213: product uses default “Allow” action, instead of default deny, leading to authentication bypass.
• CVE-2009-2168: chain: redirect without exit (CWE-698) leads to resultant authentication bypass.
• CVE-2009-3107: product does not restrict access to a listening port for a critical service, allowing authentication to be bypassed.
• CVE-2009-1596: product does not properly implement a security-related configuration setting, allowing authentication bypass.
• CVE-2009-2422: authentication routine returns “nil” instead of “false” in some situations, allowing authentication bypass using an invalid username.
• CVE-2009-3232: authentication update script does not properly handle when admin does not select any authentication modules, allowing authentication bypass.
• CVE-2009-3231: use of LDAP authentication with anonymous binds causes empty password to result in successful authentication
• CVE-2005-3435: product authentication succeeds if user-provided MD5 hash matches the hash in its database; this can be subjected to replay attacks.
• CVE-2005-0408: chain: product generates predictable MD5 hashes using a constant value combined with username, allowing authentication bypass.