CWE-285: Improper Authorization
low-riskThe product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
Common Consequences
Detection Methods
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.
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
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.
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
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Web Application Scanner Web Services Scanner Database Scanners
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Host Application Interface Scanner Fuzz Tester Framework-based Fuzzer Forced Path Execution Monitored Virtual Environment - run potentially malicious code in sandbox / wrapper / virtual machine, see if it does anything suspicious
According 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)
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction Cost effective for partial coverage: Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.)
Real-World Examples (10)
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS | KEV |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-29927 | 9.1 | 93.0% | — |
| CVE-2021-28799 | 10.0 | 91.1% | Y |
| CVE-2023-2227 | 9.1 | 90.5% | — |
| CVE-2024-34257 | 9.8 | 89.6% | — |
| CVE-2023-32707 | 8.8 | 82.7% | — |
| CVE-2019-1898 | 5.3 | 78.7% | — |
| CVE-2016-5676 | 7.5 | 76.2% | — |
| CVE-2023-22480 | 7.3 | 75.6% | — |
| CVE-2022-3229 | 9.8 | 72.2% | — |
| CVE-2023-48241 | 7.5 | 69.2% | — |