CWE-15 Detail

CWE-15

External Control of System or Configuration Setting
Incomplete
2006-07-19
00h00 +00:00
2023-06-29
00h00 +00:00
CWE Mitre.org
Notifications for a CWE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CWE.
Notifications manage

Name: External Control of System or Configuration Setting

One or more system settings or configuration elements can be externally controlled by a user.

CWE Description

Allowing external control of system settings can disrupt service or cause an application to behave in unexpected, and potentially malicious ways.

General Informations

Modes Of Introduction

Implementation : Setting manipulation vulnerabilities occur when an attacker can control values that govern the behavior of the system, manage specific resources, or in some way affect the functionality of the application.
Implementation : REALIZATION: This weakness is caused during implementation of an architectural security tactic.

Applicable Platforms

Technologies

Class: Not Technology-Specific (Undetermined)
Class: ICS/OT (Undetermined)

Common Consequences

Scope Impact Likelihood
OtherVaries by Context

Potential Mitigations

Phases : Architecture and Design

Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.

Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.


Phases : Implementation // Architecture and Design
Because setting manipulation covers a diverse set of functions, any attempt at illustrating it will inevitably be incomplete. Rather than searching for a tight-knit relationship between the functions addressed in the setting manipulation category, take a step back and consider the sorts of system values that an attacker should not be allowed to control.
Phases : Implementation // Architecture and Design
In general, do not allow user-provided or otherwise untrusted data to control sensitive values. The leverage that an attacker gains by controlling these values is not always immediately obvious, but do not underestimate the creativity of the attacker.

Detection Methods

Automated Static Analysis

Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect "sources" (origins of input) with "sinks" (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.)
Effectiveness : High

Vulnerability Mapping Notes

Justification : This CWE entry is at the Base level of abstraction, which is a preferred level of abstraction for mapping to the root causes of vulnerabilities.
Comment : Carefully read both the name and description to ensure that this mapping is an appropriate fit. Do not try to 'force' a mapping to a lower-level Base/Variant simply to comply with this preferred level of abstraction.

Related Attack Patterns

CAPEC-ID Attack Pattern Name
CAPEC-13 Subverting Environment Variable Values
The adversary directly or indirectly modifies environment variables used by or controlling the target software. The adversary's goal is to cause the target software to deviate from its expected operation in a manner that benefits the adversary.
CAPEC-146 XML Schema Poisoning
An adversary corrupts or modifies the content of XML schema information passed between a client and server for the purpose of undermining the security of the target. XML Schemas provide the structure and content definitions for XML documents. Schema poisoning is the ability to manipulate a schema either by replacing or modifying it to compromise the programs that process documents that use this schema.
CAPEC-176 Configuration/Environment Manipulation
An attacker manipulates files or settings external to a target application which affect the behavior of that application. For example, many applications use external configuration files and libraries - modification of these entities or otherwise affecting the application's ability to use them would constitute a configuration/environment manipulation attack.
CAPEC-203 Manipulate Registry Information
An adversary exploits a weakness in authorization in order to modify content within a registry (e.g., Windows Registry, Mac plist, application registry). Editing registry information can permit the adversary to hide configuration information or remove indicators of compromise to cover up activity. Many applications utilize registries to store configuration and service information. As such, modification of registry information can affect individual services (affecting billing, authorization, or even allowing for identity spoofing) or the overall configuration of a targeted application. For example, both Java RMI and SOAP use registries to track available services. Changing registry values is sometimes a preliminary step towards completing another attack pattern, but given the long term usage of many registry values, manipulation of registry information could be its own end.
CAPEC-270 Modification of Registry Run Keys
An adversary adds a new entry to the "run keys" in the Windows registry so that an application of their choosing is executed when a user logs in. In this way, the adversary can get their executable to operate and run on the target system with the authorized user's level of permissions. This attack is a good way for an adversary to run persistent spyware on a user's machine, such as a keylogger.
CAPEC-271 Schema Poisoning
An adversary corrupts or modifies the content of a schema for the purpose of undermining the security of the target. Schemas provide the structure and content definitions for resources used by an application. By replacing or modifying a schema, the adversary can affect how the application handles or interprets a resource, often leading to possible denial of service, entering into an unexpected state, or recording incomplete data.
CAPEC-579 Replace Winlogon Helper DLL
Winlogon is a part of Windows that performs logon actions. In Windows systems prior to Windows Vista, a registry key can be modified that causes Winlogon to load a DLL on startup. Adversaries may take advantage of this feature to load adversarial code at startup.
CAPEC-69 Target Programs with Elevated Privileges
This attack targets programs running with elevated privileges. The adversary tries to leverage a vulnerability in the running program and get arbitrary code to execute with elevated privileges.
CAPEC-76 Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls
An attacker manipulates inputs to the target software which the target software passes to file system calls in the OS. The goal is to gain access to, and perhaps modify, areas of the file system that the target software did not intend to be accessible.
CAPEC-77 Manipulating User-Controlled Variables
This attack targets user controlled variables (DEBUG=1, PHP Globals, and So Forth). An adversary can override variables leveraging user-supplied, untrusted query variables directly used on the application server without any data sanitization. In extreme cases, the adversary can change variables controlling the business logic of the application. For instance, in languages like PHP, a number of poorly set default configurations may allow the user to override variables.

References

REF-6

Seven Pernicious Kingdoms: A Taxonomy of Software Security Errors
Katrina Tsipenyuk, Brian Chess, Gary McGraw.
https://samate.nist.gov/SSATTM_Content/papers/Seven%20Pernicious%20Kingdoms%20-%20Taxonomy%20of%20Sw%20Security%20Errors%20-%20Tsipenyuk%20-%20Chess%20-%20McGraw.pdf

Submission

Name Organization Date Date release Version
7 Pernicious Kingdoms 2006-07-19 +00:00 2006-07-19 +00:00 Draft 3

Modifications

Name Organization Date Comment
Eric Dalci Cigital 2008-07-01 +00:00 updated Time_of_Introduction
CWE Content Team MITRE 2008-09-08 +00:00 updated Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2008-10-14 +00:00 updated Description
CWE Content Team MITRE 2009-01-12 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2009-05-27 +00:00 updated Demonstrative_Examples
CWE Content Team MITRE 2009-10-29 +00:00 updated Modes_of_Introduction, Other_Notes
CWE Content Team MITRE 2010-04-05 +00:00 updated Related_Attack_Patterns
CWE Content Team MITRE 2011-06-01 +00:00 updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2011-06-27 +00:00 updated Common_Consequences
CWE Content Team MITRE 2012-05-11 +00:00 updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2012-10-30 +00:00 updated Potential_Mitigations
CWE Content Team MITRE 2013-02-21 +00:00 updated Potential_Mitigations
CWE Content Team MITRE 2014-07-30 +00:00 updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2017-01-19 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2017-11-08 +00:00 updated Modes_of_Introduction, Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2019-01-03 +00:00 updated Related_Attack_Patterns
CWE Content Team MITRE 2019-06-20 +00:00 updated Related_Attack_Patterns
CWE Content Team MITRE 2020-02-24 +00:00 updated References, Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2020-12-10 +00:00 updated Potential_Mitigations
CWE Content Team MITRE 2021-10-28 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-01-31 +00:00 updated Applicable_Platforms, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-04-27 +00:00 updated Detection_Factors, Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-06-29 +00:00 updated Mapping_Notes