VulnScan

CWE-862: Missing Authorization

What is CWE-862?

MITRE CWE

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

Verify to analyze this CWE entry

A short verification protects the official data source and prevents automated AI abuse.

Detailed description

CyStack is analyzing this CWE entry. The page will update automatically when the bilingual analysis is ready.

Characteristics

CyStack is analyzing this CWE entry. The page will update automatically when the bilingual analysis is ready.

Common consequences

CyStack is analyzing this CWE entry. The page will update automatically when the bilingual analysis is ready.

Mitigations

CyStack is analyzing this CWE entry. The page will update automatically when the bilingual analysis is ready.

Detection methods

CyStack is analyzing this CWE entry. The page will update automatically when the bilingual analysis is ready.

Representative vulnerabilities

CyStack is analyzing this CWE entry. The page will update automatically when the bilingual analysis is ready.
Official MITRE CWE dataMITRE CWE

Original source fields and evidence from the MITRE CWE record.

Official definition

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.

Alternate terms

  • 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.

Modes of 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

Common consequences

  • 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 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 restricted, or by accessing insufficiently-protected, privileged functionality to write the data.

  • Access Control

    Gain Privileges or Assume Identity, Bypass Protection Mechanism

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

  • Availability

    DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart, DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU), DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory), DoS: Resource Consumption (Other)

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

Mitigations

  • Architecture and DesignDivide 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.
  • Architecture and DesignEnsure 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].
  • Architecture and Design · Libraries or FrameworksUse 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 DesignFor 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, InstallationUse 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.

Detection methods

  • Automated Static AnalysisAutomated 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 AnalysisAutomated 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 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. Specifically, manual static analysis is useful for evaluating the correctness of custom authorization mechanisms.Effectiveness: ModerateThese 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.
  • 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: ``` Host Application Interface Scanner 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: ``` Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source 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
  • 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

These examples illustrate this CWE entry and are not an exhaustive list of related vulnerabilities.

  • 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)

Sources and references

References

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.

Learn more

Run an in-depth assessment with complete web risk management

CyStack VulnScan continuously discovers assets, validates vulnerabilities, and helps security teams prioritize remediation across the organization.

Explore CyStack VulnScan
CyStack VulnScan dashboard