Improper Access Control (Authorization) |
Weakness ID: 285 (Weakness Class) | Status: Draft |
Description Summary
Extended Description
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 leaks, denial of service, and arbitrary code execution.
AuthZ: | "AuthZ" is typically used as an abbreviation of "authorization" within the web application security community. It is also distinct from "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. |
---|
Languages
Language-independent
Technology Classes
Web-Server: (Often)
Database-Server: (Often)
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. |
Authorization weaknesses may arise when a single-user application is ported to a multi-user environment. |
Scope | Effect |
---|---|
Confidentiality | 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 | 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. |
Integrity | An attacker could gain privileges by modifying or reading critical data directly, or by accessing insufficiently-protected, privileged functionality. |
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 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. |
Example 1
The following program could be part of a bulletin board system that allows users to send private messages to each other. This program intends to authenticate the user before deciding whether a private message should be displayed. Assume that LookupMessageObject() ensures that the $id argument is numeric, constructs a filename based on that id, and reads the message details from that file. Also assume that the program stores all private messages for all users in the same directory.
While the program properly exits if authentication fails, it does not ensure that the message is addressed to the user. As a result, an authenticated attacker could provide any arbitrary identifier and read private messages that were intended for other users.
One way to avoid this problem would be to ensure that the "to" field in the message object matches the username of the authenticated user.
Reference | Description |
---|---|
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 defauls 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. |
Phase: Architecture and Design Divide your application 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. |
Phase: 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. |
Phase: Architecture and Design Use authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature. |
Phase: 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. |
Nature | Type | ID | Name | View(s) this relationship pertains to![]() |
---|---|---|---|---|
ChildOf | ![]() | 254 | Security Features | Seven Pernicious Kingdoms (primary)700 |
ChildOf | ![]() | 284 | Access Control (Authorization) Issues | Development Concepts (primary)699 Research Concepts (primary)1000 |
ChildOf | ![]() | 721 | OWASP Top Ten 2007 Category A10 - Failure to Restrict URL Access | Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten (2007) (primary)629 |
ChildOf | ![]() | 723 | OWASP Top Ten 2004 Category A2 - Broken Access Control | Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten (2004) (primary)711 |
ChildOf | ![]() | 753 | 2009 Top 25 - Porous Defenses | Weaknesses in the 2009 CWE/SANS Top 25 Most Dangerous Programming Errors (primary)750 |
ChildOf | ![]() | 803 | 2010 Top 25 - Porous Defenses | Weaknesses in the 2010 CWE/SANS Top 25 Most Dangerous Programming Errors (primary)800 |
ParentOf | ![]() | 219 | Sensitive Data Under Web Root | Research Concepts (primary)1000 |
ParentOf | ![]() | 551 | Incorrect Behavior Order: Authorization Before Parsing and Canonicalization | Development Concepts (primary)699 Research Concepts1000 |
ParentOf | ![]() | 638 | Failure to Use Complete Mediation | Research Concepts1000 |
ParentOf | ![]() | 804 | Guessable CAPTCHA | Development Concepts (primary)699 Research Concepts (primary)1000 |
Mapped Taxonomy Name | Node ID | Fit | Mapped Node Name |
---|---|---|---|
7 Pernicious Kingdoms | Missing Access Control | ||
OWASP Top Ten 2007 | A10 | CWE More Specific | Failure to Restrict URL Access |
OWASP Top Ten 2004 | A2 | CWE More Specific | Broken Access Control |
CAPEC-ID | Attack Pattern Name | (CAPEC Version: 1.4) |
---|---|---|
1 | Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs | |
13 | Subverting Environment Variable Values | |
17 | Accessing, Modifying or Executing Executable Files | |
87 | Forceful Browsing | |
39 | Manipulating Opaque Client-based Data Tokens | |
45 | Buffer Overflow via Symbolic Links | |
51 | Poison Web Service Registry | |
59 | Session Credential Falsification through Prediction | |
60 | Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay) | |
77 | Manipulating User-Controlled Variables | |
76 | Manipulating Input to File System Calls | |
104 | Cross Zone Scripting |
NIST. "Role Based Access Control and Role Based Security". <http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SNS/rbac/>. |
[REF-11] M. Howard and D. LeBlanc. "Writing Secure Code". Chapter 4, "Authorization" Page 114; Chapter 6, "Determining Appropriate Access Control" Page 171. 2nd Edition. Microsoft. 2002. |
Submissions | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Submission Date | Submitter | Organization | Source | |
7 Pernicious Kingdoms | Externally Mined | |||
Modifications | ||||
Modification Date | Modifier | Organization | Source | |
2008-07-01 | Eric Dalci | Cigital | External | |
updated Time of Introduction | ||||
2008-08-15 | Veracode | External | ||
Suggested OWASP Top Ten 2004 mapping | ||||
2008-09-08 | CWE Content Team | MITRE | Internal | |
updated Relationships, Other Notes, Taxonomy Mappings | ||||
2009-01-12 | CWE Content Team | MITRE | Internal | |
updated Common Consequences, Description, Likelihood of Exploit, Name, Other Notes, Potential Mitigations, References, Relationships | ||||
2009-03-10 | CWE Content Team | MITRE | Internal | |
updated Potential Mitigations | ||||
2009-05-27 | CWE Content Team | MITRE | Internal | |
updated Description, Related Attack Patterns | ||||
2009-07-27 | CWE Content Team | MITRE | Internal | |
updated Relationships | ||||
2009-10-29 | CWE Content Team | MITRE | Internal | |
updated Type | ||||
2009-12-28 | CWE Content Team | MITRE | Internal | |
updated Applicable Platforms, Common Consequences, Demonstrative Examples, Detection Factors, Modes of Introduction, Observed Examples, Relationships | ||||
Previous Entry Names | ||||
Change Date | Previous Entry Name | |||
2009-01-12 | Missing or Inconsistent Access Control | |||