CWE-250: Execution with Unnecessary Privileges

low-risk

The product performs an operation at a privilege level that is higher than the minimum level required, which creates new weaknesses or amplifies the consequences of other weaknesses.

Abstraction: Base

Common Consequences

Confidentiality Gain Privileges or Assume Identity

Detection Methods

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.

Black Box

Use monitoring tools that examine the software's process as it interacts with the operating system and the network. This technique is useful in cases when source code is unavailable, if the software was not developed by you, or if you want to verify that the build phase did not introduce any new weaknesses. Examples include debuggers that directly attach to the running process; system-call tracing utilities such as truss (Solaris) and strace (Linux); system activity monitors such as FileMon, RegMon, Process Monitor, and other Sysinternals utilities (Windows); and sniffers and protocol analyzers that monitor network traffic. Attach the monitor to the process and perform a login. Look for library functions and system calls that indicate when privileges are being raised or dropped. Look for accesses of resources that are restricted to normal users.

Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Compare binary / bytecode to application permission manifest Cost effective for partial coverage: Bytecode Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis Binary Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis

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: Host-based Vulnerability Scanners - Examine configuration for flaws, verifying that audit mechanisms work, ensure host configuration meets certain predefined criteria

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

Manual Static Analysis - Source Code

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Manual Source Code Review (not inspections) Cost effective for partial coverage: Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source

Automated Static Analysis - Source Code

According 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 Analyzer

Automated Static Analysis

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Configuration Checker Permission Manifest Analysis

Architecture or Design Review

According 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-Construction Cost effective for partial coverage: Attack Modeling

Real-World Examples (10)

CVE CVSS EPSS KEV
CVE-2023-46360 8.8 55.1%
CVE-2024-38813 7.5 29.5% Y
CVE-2023-52030 9.8 14.8%
CVE-2024-42024 8.8 4.3%
CVE-2024-43583 7.8 4.1%
CVE-2025-49581 8.8 3.9%
CVE-2019-16784 7.0 3.2%
CVE-2024-45034 8.8 3.1%
CVE-2024-25421 9.8 2.6%
CVE-2024-43652 8.8 2.5%
1
/ 100
low-risk
Active Threat 1/50 · Minimal
Exploit Availability 0/50 · Minimal