CWE-287: Improper Authentication

When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.

Detailed description

Characteristics

• authentification: An alternate term is "authentification", which appears to be most commonly used by people from non-English-speaking countries.
• AuthN: "AuthN" is typically used as an abbreviation of "authentication" within the web application security community. It is also distinct from "AuthZ," which is an abbreviation of "authorization." The use of "Auth" as an abbreviation is discouraged, since it could be used for either authentication or authorization.
• AuthC: "AuthC" is used as an abbreviation of "authentication," but it appears to used less frequently than "AuthN."

Common consequences

• Integrity, Confidentiality, Availability, Access Control

  Read Application Data, Gain Privileges or Assume Identity, Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands

  This weakness can lead to the exposure of resources or functionality to unintended actors, possibly providing attackers with sensitive information or even execute arbitrary code.

Mitigations

• Architecture and Design · Libraries or FrameworksUse an authentication framework or library such as the OWASP ESAPI Authentication feature.

Detection methods

• Automated Static AnalysisAutomated static analysis is useful for detecting certain types of authentication. A tool may be able to analyze related configuration files, such as .htaccess in Apache web servers, or detect the usage of commonly-used authentication libraries. Generally, automated static analysis tools have difficulty detecting custom authentication schemes. In addition, the software's design may include some functionality that is accessible to any user and does not require an established identity; an automated technique that detects the absence of authentication may report false positives.Effectiveness: Limited
• Manual Static AnalysisThis 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. Manual static analysis is useful for evaluating the correctness of custom authentication mechanisms.Effectiveness: HighThese may be more effective than strictly automated techniques. This is especially the case with weaknesses that are related to design and business rules.
• Manual Static Analysis - Binary or BytecodeAccording 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 & anomaliesEffectiveness: SOAR Partial
• Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results InterpretationAccording to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Web Application Scanner Web Services Scanner Database ScannersEffectiveness: SOAR Partial
• Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results InterpretationAccording to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Fuzz Tester Framework-based FuzzerEffectiveness: SOAR Partial
• Manual Static Analysis - Source CodeAccording to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Manual Source Code Review (not inspections)Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
• Automated Static Analysis - Source CodeAccording 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 AnalyzerEffectiveness: SOAR Partial
• Automated Static AnalysisAccording to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Configuration CheckerEffectiveness: SOAR Partial
• Architecture or Design ReviewAccording 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-ConstructionEffectiveness: High

Representative vulnerabilities

Sources and references

• MITRE CWE
• CWE Terms of Use

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.