VulnScan

CWE-862: Missing Authorization

CWE-862 là gì?

MITRE CWE

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

Xác minh để phân tích mục CWE này

Bước xác minh ngắn giúp bảo vệ nguồn dữ liệu chính thức và hạn chế việc gọi AI tự động.

Mô tả chi tiết

CyStack đang phân tích mục CWE này. Trang sẽ tự động cập nhật khi bản phân tích song ngữ hoàn tất.

Đặc điểm

CyStack đang phân tích mục CWE này. Trang sẽ tự động cập nhật khi bản phân tích song ngữ hoàn tất.

Tác động thường gặp

CyStack đang phân tích mục CWE này. Trang sẽ tự động cập nhật khi bản phân tích song ngữ hoàn tất.

Biện pháp giảm thiểu

CyStack đang phân tích mục CWE này. Trang sẽ tự động cập nhật khi bản phân tích song ngữ hoàn tất.

Phương pháp phát hiện

CyStack đang phân tích mục CWE này. Trang sẽ tự động cập nhật khi bản phân tích song ngữ hoàn tất.

Lỗ hổng điển hình

CyStack đang phân tích mục CWE này. Trang sẽ tự động cập nhật khi bản phân tích song ngữ hoàn tất.
Dữ liệu MITRE CWE chính thứcMITRE CWE

Các trường dữ liệu và bằng chứng gốc từ hồ sơ MITRE CWE.

Nội dung gốc của MITRE được hiển thị bằng tiếng Anh khi nguồn không có bản địa hóa.

Định nghĩa MITRE gốc (tiếng Anh)

MITRE CWE

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

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.

Tên gọi khác

  • AuthZ — "AuthZ" is typically used as an abbreviation of "authorization" within the web application security community. It is distinct from "AuthN" (or, sometimes, "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.

Giai đoạn hình thành

  • Kiến trúc và thiết kế: 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.
  • Hiện thực hóa: 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.
  • Vận hành

Tác động thường gặp

  • Tính bí mật

    Đọc dữ liệu ứng dụng, Đọc tệp hoặc thư mục

    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.

  • Tính toàn vẹn

    Thay đổi dữ liệu ứng dụng, Thay đổi tệp hoặc thư mục

    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.

  • Kiểm soát truy cập

    Chiếm đặc quyền hoặc mạo danh, Vượt qua cơ chế bảo vệ

    An attacker could gain privileges by modifying or reading critical data directly, or by accessing privileged functionality.

  • Tính sẵn sàng

    Từ chối dịch vụ: sập, thoát hoặc khởi động lại, Từ chối dịch vụ: tiêu thụ tài nguyên CPU, Từ chối dịch vụ: tiêu thụ bộ nhớ, Từ chối dịch vụ: tiêu thụ tài nguyên khác

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

Biện pháp giảm thiểu

  • Kiến trúc và thiết kếDivide 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.
  • Kiến trúc và thiết kếEnsure 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].
  • Kiến trúc và thiết kế · Thư viện hoặc frameworkUse 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].
  • Kiến trúc và thiết kếFor 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.
  • Cấu hình hệ thống, Cài đặtUse 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.

Phương pháp phát hiện

  • Phân tích tĩnh tự độngAutomated 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.Hiệu quả: Hạn chế
  • Phân tích động tự độngAutomated 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.
  • Phân tích thủ côngThis 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.Hiệu quả: KháThese 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.
  • Phân tích tĩnh tệp nhị phân hoặc bytecode thủ côngAccording 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 & anomaliesHiệu quả: SOAR một phần
  • Phân tích động với diễn giải kết quả tự độngAccording to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Web Application Scanner Web Services Scanner Database ScannersHiệu quả: SOAR một phần
  • Phân tích động với diễn giải kết quả thủ côngAccording to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Host Application Interface Scanner Fuzz Tester Framework-based FuzzerHiệu quả: SOAR một phần
  • Phân tích tĩnh mã nguồn thủ côngAccording 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)Hiệu quả: SOAR một phần
  • Phân tích tĩnh mã nguồn tự độngAccording 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 AnalyzerHiệu quả: SOAR một phần
  • Rà soát kiến trúc hoặc thiết kếAccording 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-ConstructionHiệu quả: Cao

Lỗ hổng điển hình

Các ví dụ này chỉ minh họa cho mục CWE, không phải danh sách đầy đủ mọi lỗ hổng liên quan.

  • CVE-2026-32228workflow management product does not check authorization for running a workflow, allowing UI and API users to trigger workflow objects for which they have no access
  • CVE-2024-6845chatbot Wordpress plugin does not perform authorization on a REST endpoint, allowing retrieval of an API key
  • CVE-2025-2224AI-enabled WordPress plugin has a missing capability check for a particular function, allowing changing public status of posts
  • CVE-2022-24730Go-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-2009-3168Web application does not restrict access to admin scripts, allowing authenticated users to reset administrative passwords.
  • CVE-2009-3597Web application stores database file under the web root with insufficient access control (CWE-219), allowing direct request.
  • CVE-2009-2282Terminal server does not check authorization for guest access.
  • CVE-2008-5027System monitoring software allows users to bypass authorization by creating custom forms.
  • CVE-2009-3781Content management system does not check access permissions for private files, allowing others to view those files.
  • CVE-2008-6548Product does not check the ACL of a page accessed using an "include" directive, allowing attackers to read unauthorized files.
  • CVE-2009-2960Web application does not restrict access to admin scripts, allowing authenticated users to modify passwords of other users.
  • CVE-2009-3230Database server does not use appropriate privileges for certain sensitive operations.
  • CVE-2009-2213Gateway uses default "Allow" configuration for its authorization settings.
  • CVE-2009-0034Chain: product does not properly interpret a configuration option for a system group, allowing users to gain privileges.
  • CVE-2008-6123Chain: SNMP product does not properly parse a configuration option for which hosts are allowed to connect, allowing unauthorized IP addresses to connect.
  • CVE-2008-7109Chain: reliance on client-side security (CWE-602) allows attackers to bypass authorization using a custom client.
  • CVE-2008-3424Chain: product does not properly handle wildcards in an authorization policy list, allowing unintended access.
  • CVE-2005-1036Chain: 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-2008-4577ACL-based protection mechanism treats negative access rights as if they are positive, allowing bypass of intended restrictions.
  • CVE-2007-2925Default ACL list for a DNS server does not set certain ACLs, allowing unauthorized DNS queries.
  • CVE-2006-6679Product relies on the X-Forwarded-For HTTP header for authorization, allowing unintended access by spoofing the header.
  • CVE-2005-3623OS kernel does not check for a certain privilege before setting ACLs for files.
  • CVE-2005-2801Chain: file-system code performs an incorrect comparison (CWE-697), preventing default ACLs from being properly applied.
  • CVE-2001-1155Chain: 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-2020-17533Chain: unchecked return value (CWE-252) of some functions for policy enforcement leads to authorization bypass (CWE-862)

Nguồn và tài liệu tham khảo

Tham chiếu

CWE™ Program, operated by The MITRE Corporation. Copyright © 2006–2026, The MITRE Corporation. The MITRE Corporation hereby grants you a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use CWE for research, development, and commercial purposes. CWE Terms of Use.

Tìm hiểu thêm

Kiểm tra chuyên sâu cùng giải pháp quản lý rủi ro Web toàn diện

Giải pháp CyStack VulnScan liên tục phát hiện tài sản, xác minh lỗ hổng và giúp đội ngũ bảo mật ưu tiên khắc phục cho toàn bộ doanh nghiệp.

Khám phá CyStack VulnScan
CyStack VulnScan dashboard