CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization
low-riskThe product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
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. Even if they can be customized to recognize these schemes, they might not be able to tell whether the scheme correctly performs the authorization in a way that cannot be bypassed or subverted by an attacker.
Automated dynamic analysis may not be able to find interfaces that are protected by authorization checks, even if those checks contain weaknesses.
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-2022-46169 | 9.8 | 94.5% | Y |
| CVE-2023-38035 | 9.8 | 94.4% | Y |
| CVE-2023-38035 | 9.8 | 94.4% | Y |
| CVE-2023-22518 | 9.8 | 94.4% | Y |
| CVE-2023-22518 | 9.8 | 94.4% | Y |
| CVE-2024-38856 | 9.8 | 94.4% | Y |
| CVE-2019-7192 | 9.8 | 94.3% | Y |
| CVE-2019-7192 | 9.8 | 94.3% | Y |
| CVE-2024-45216 | 9.8 | 94.1% | — |
| CVE-2021-36749 | 6.5 | 93.8% | — |