CWE-285 Improper Authorization

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

• Confidentiality: Read Application Data, Read Files or Directories — An 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. • Integrity: Modify Application Data, Modify Files or Directories — An 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 Control: Gain Privileges or Assume Identity, Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands — When access control checks are not applied consistently - or not at all - an attacker could gain privileges and execute unauthorized code or commands by modifying or reading critical data directly, or by accessing insufficiently-protected, privileged functionality.

• [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] 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, 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.

• 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. • 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. • 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 • 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 • Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation: According to SOAR [REF-1479], 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 • Manual Static Analysis - Source Code: According to SOAR [REF-1479], 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) • Automated Static Analysis - Source Code: According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: • Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer • Architecture or Design Review: According to SOAR [REF-1479], 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.)

• CVE-2024-6845: chatbot Wordpress plugin does not perform authorization on a REST endpoint, allowing retrieval of an API key • 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.