Détail du CWE-862

CWE-862

Missing Authorization
Haute
Incomplete
2011-06-01
00h00 +00:00
2024-11-19
00h00 +00:00
Notifications pour un CWE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CWE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Nom: Missing Authorization

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

Informations générales

Informations de base

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 d'introduction

Architecture and Design :

OMISSION: This weakness is caused by missing a security tactic during the architecture and design phase.

Authorization weaknesses may arise when a single-user application is ported to a multi-user environment.


Implementation : A developer may introduce authorization weaknesses because of a lack of understanding about the underlying technologies. For example, a developer may assume that attackers cannot modify certain inputs such as headers or cookies.
Operation

Plateformes applicables

Langue

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined)

Technologies

Name: Web Server (Often)
Name: Database Server (Often)

Conséquences courantes

Portée Impact Probabilité
ConfidentialityRead Application Data, Read Files or Directories

Note: An attacker could read sensitive data, either by reading the data directly from a data store that is not restricted, or by accessing insufficiently-protected, privileged functionality to read the data.
IntegrityModify Application Data, Modify Files or Directories

Note: An attacker could modify sensitive data, either by writing the data directly to a data store that is not restricted, or by accessing insufficiently-protected, privileged functionality to write the data.
Access ControlGain Privileges or Assume Identity, Bypass Protection Mechanism

Note: An attacker could gain privileges by modifying or reading critical data directly, or by accessing privileged functionality.
AvailabilityDoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart, DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU), DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory), DoS: Resource Consumption (Other)

Note: An attacker could gain unauthorized access to resources on the system and excessively consume those resources, leading to a denial of service.

Exemples observés

Références Description

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-2009-3597

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-2008-5027

System monitoring software allows users to bypass authorization by creating custom forms.

CVE-2009-3781

Content management system does not check access permissions for private files, allowing others to view those files.

CVE-2008-6548

Product does not check the ACL of a page accessed using an "include" directive, allowing attackers to read unauthorized files.

CVE-2009-2960

Web application does not restrict access to admin scripts, allowing authenticated users to modify passwords of other users.

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-2008-7109

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-2005-1036

Chain: Bypass of access restrictions due to improper authorization (CWE-862) of a user results from an improperly initialized (CWE-909) I/O permission bitmap

CVE-2008-4577

ACL-based protection mechanism treats negative access rights as if they are positive, allowing bypass of intended restrictions.

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.

CVE-2020-17533

Chain: unchecked return value (CWE-252) of some functions for policy enforcement leads to authorization bypass (CWE-862)

Mesures d’atténuation potentielles

Phases : 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) [REF-229] 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.


Phases : Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied 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 [REF-7].
Phases : Architecture and Design

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].


Phases : 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.


Phases : System Configuration // Installation
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.

Méthodes de détection

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.


Efficacité : 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.


Efficacité : Moderate

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

Efficacité : 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

Efficacité : 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

Efficacité : 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)

Efficacité : SOAR Partial

Automated Static Analysis - Source Code

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

Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Source code Weakness Analyzer
  • Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer

Efficacité : SOAR Partial

Architecture or Design Review

According to SOAR, 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

Efficacité : High

Notes de cartographie des vulnérabilités

Justification : This CWE entry is a Class and might have Base-level children that would be more appropriate
Commentaire : Examine children of this entry to see if there is a better fit

Modèles d'attaque associés

CAPEC-ID Nom du modèle d'attaque
CAPEC-665 Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws

An adversary leverages a firmware weakness within the Thunderbolt protocol, on a computing device to manipulate Thunderbolt controller firmware in order to exploit vulnerabilities in the implementation of authorization and verification schemes within Thunderbolt protection mechanisms. Upon gaining physical access to a target device, the adversary conducts high-level firmware manipulation of the victim Thunderbolt controller SPI (Serial Peripheral Interface) flash, through the use of a SPI Programing device and an external Thunderbolt device, typically as the target device is booting up. If successful, this allows the adversary to modify memory, subvert authentication mechanisms, spoof identities and content, and extract data and memory from the target device. Currently 7 major vulnerabilities exist within Thunderbolt protocol with 9 attack vectors as noted in the Execution Flow.

NotesNotes

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.

Références

REF-229

Role Based Access Control and Role Based Security
NIST.
https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/role-based-access-control

REF-7

Writing Secure Code
Michael Howard, David LeBlanc.
https://www.microsoftpressstore.com/store/writing-secure-code-9780735617223

REF-231

Top 25 Series - Rank 5 - Improper Access Control (Authorization)
Frank Kim.
https://www.sans.org/blog/top-25-series-rank-5-improper-access-control-authorization/

REF-45

OWASP Enterprise Security API (ESAPI) Project
OWASP.
http://www.owasp.org/index.php/ESAPI

REF-233

Authentication using JAAS
Rahul Bhattacharjee.
https://javaranch.com/journal/2008/04/authentication-using-JAAS.html

REF-62

The Art of Software Security Assessment
Mark Dowd, John McDonald, Justin Schuh.

Soumission

Nom Organisation Date Date de publication Version
CWE Content Team MITRE 2011-05-24 +00:00 2011-06-01 +00:00 1.13

Modifications

Nom Organisation Date Commentaire
CWE Content Team MITRE 2011-06-27 +00:00 updated Demonstrative_Examples, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2011-09-13 +00:00 updated Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2012-05-11 +00:00 updated Demonstrative_Examples, Observed_Examples, References, Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2012-10-30 +00:00 updated Potential_Mitigations
CWE Content Team MITRE 2014-02-18 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2014-07-30 +00:00 updated Detection_Factors
CWE Content Team MITRE 2017-01-19 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2017-11-08 +00:00 updated Applicable_Platforms, Modes_of_Introduction, References, Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2018-03-27 +00:00 updated References
CWE Content Team MITRE 2019-06-20 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2020-02-24 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2020-08-20 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2020-12-10 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2021-03-15 +00:00 updated Alternate_Terms, Observed_Examples
CWE Content Team MITRE 2021-07-20 +00:00 updated Observed_Examples, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2021-10-28 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2022-06-28 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2022-10-13 +00:00 updated Observed_Examples
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-01-31 +00:00 updated Description, Potential_Mitigations
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-04-27 +00:00 updated References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-06-29 +00:00 updated Mapping_Notes, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2024-11-19 +00:00 updated Common_Consequences, Description, Diagram, Relationships, Terminology_Notes