Goal Reached Thanks to every supporter — we hit 100%!

Goal: 1000 CNY · Raised: 1000 CNY

100.0%
Buy Us a Coffee

CWE-285 (授权机制不恰当) — Vulnerability Class 986

986 vulnerabilities classified as CWE-285 (授权机制不恰当). AI Chinese analysis included.

CWE-285 represents a critical access control weakness where an application fails to verify whether a user possesses the necessary permissions to access a specific resource or execute a particular action. Attackers typically exploit this vulnerability by manipulating request parameters, such as changing user IDs in URLs or API calls, to bypass security checks and access data belonging to other users or perform administrative tasks. This often leads to severe data breaches or unauthorized system modifications. To prevent such flaws, developers must implement robust, centralized authorization mechanisms that consistently validate user privileges for every sensitive operation. Relying solely on client-side checks is insufficient; instead, server-side enforcement using role-based or attribute-based access control ensures that only authenticated and authorized entities can interact with protected resources, thereby maintaining strict integrity and confidentiality.

MITRE CWE Description
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
Common Consequences (3)
ConfidentialityRead 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 properly restricted, or by accessing insufficiently-protected, privileged functionality to read the data.
IntegrityModify 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 properly restricted, or by accessing insufficiently-protected, privileged functionality to write the data.
Access ControlGain Privileges or Assume Identity, Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
When access control checks are not applied consistently - or not at all - an attacker could gain privileges and execute unauthorized code or commands by modifying or reading critical data directly, or by accessing insufficiently-protected, privileged functionality.
Mitigations (5)
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) 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 you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply 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…
Architecture and DesignUse 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 …
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.
Examples (2)
This function runs an arbitrary SQL query on a given database, returning the result of the query.
function runEmployeeQuery($dbName, $name){ mysql_select_db($dbName,$globalDbHandle) or die("Could not open Database".$dbName); //Use a prepared statement to avoid CWE-89 $preparedStatement = $globalDbHandle->prepare('SELECT * FROM employees WHERE name = :name'); $preparedStatement->execute(array(':name' => $name)); return $preparedStatement->fetchAll(); } /.../ $employeeRecord = runEmployeeQuery('EmployeeDB',$_GET['EmployeeName']);
Bad · PHP
The following program could be part of a bulletin board system that allows users to send private messages to each other. This program intends to authenticate the user before deciding whether a private message should be displayed. Assume that LookupMessageObject() ensures that the $id argument is numeric, constructs a filename based on that id, and reads the message details from that file. Also ass…
sub DisplayPrivateMessage { my($id) = @_; my $Message = LookupMessageObject($id); print "From: " . encodeHTML($Message->{from}) . "<br>\n"; print "Subject: " . encodeHTML($Message->{subject}) . "\n"; print "<hr>\n"; print "Body: " . encodeHTML($Message->{body}) . "\n"; } my $q = new CGI; # For purposes of this example, assume that CWE-309 and # CWE-523 do not apply. if (! AuthenticateUser($q->param('username'), $q->param('password'))) { ExitError("invalid username or password"); } my $id = $q->param('id'); DisplayPrivateMessage($id);
Bad · Perl
CVE IDTitleCVSSSeverityPublished
CVE-2022-34256 Adobe Commerce Improper Authorization Privilege escalation — Magento Commerce 7.5 High2022-08-16
CVE-2022-31609 NVIDIA vGPU Software 安全漏洞 — NVIDIA Virtual GPU Software and NVIDIA Cloud Gaming 7.8 High2022-08-05
CVE-2022-2675 Unitree Go 1 "Robot Dog" Unauthenticated Remote Power Down — Go 1 6.5 -2022-08-05
CVE-2022-33722 SAMSUNG Mobile devices 安全漏洞 — Samsung Mobile Devices 4.0 Medium2022-08-05
CVE-2022-36837 SAMSUNG Email 安全漏洞 — Samsung email 6.2 Medium2022-08-05
CVE-2022-36838 SAMSUNG Mobile devices 安全漏洞 — Galaxy Wearable 4.0 Medium2022-08-05
CVE-2022-2595 Improper Authorization in kromitgmbh/titra — kromitgmbh/titra 8.8 -2022-08-01
CVE-2022-26310 Improper Authorization in User Management to Vertical Privilege Escalation — Pandora FMS 7.3 High2022-08-01
CVE-2022-24083 Pegasystem Pega 安全漏洞 — Pega Infinity 8.4 -2022-07-25
CVE-2022-31168 Zulip Server insufficient authorization for changing bot roles — zulip 5.4 Medium2022-07-22
CVE-2022-2393 pki-core 安全漏洞 — pki-core 5.7 -2022-07-14
CVE-2022-33705 SAMSUNG Calendar 安全漏洞 — Calendar 3.3 -2022-07-11
CVE-2022-33713 SAMSUNG Cloud 安全漏洞 — Samsung Cloud 6.2 -2022-07-11
CVE-2022-33712 SAMSUNG Mobile devices 输入验证错误漏洞 — Camera 3.3 -2022-07-11
CVE-2022-33702 SAMSUNG Mobile devices Knoxguard 安全漏洞 — Samsung Mobile Devices 6.2 Medium2022-07-11
CVE-2022-30757 SAMSUNG Mobile devices isemtelephony 安全漏洞 — Samsung Mobile Devices 4.0 Medium2022-07-11
CVE-2022-30670 Escalate Privileges to Server Admin - Robohelp Server — RoboHelp 8.8 -2022-06-16
CVE-2022-30746 Samsung mobile 安全漏洞 — Smart Things 7.5 High2022-06-07
CVE-2022-30730 Samsung Pass 安全漏洞 — Samsung Pass 4.6 Medium2022-06-07
CVE-2022-30722 Samsung Account 安全漏洞 — Samsung Mobile Devices 6.2 Medium2022-06-07
CVE-2022-30717 Samsung mobile 安全漏洞 — Samsung Mobile Devices 4.0 Medium2022-06-07
CVE-2022-2019 SourceCodester Prison Management System New User Creation improper authorization — Prison Management System 7.3 High2022-06-07
CVE-2022-31025 Invite bypasses user approval in Discourse — discourse 2.6 Low2022-06-03
CVE-2022-29236 Improper access control for pencil annotations in BigBlueButton — bigbluebutton 4.3 Medium2022-06-01
CVE-2022-29234 Grace period for lock settings in public/private chats in BigBlueButton — bigbluebutton 4.3 Medium2022-06-01
CVE-2022-29233 Improper access control for breakout rooms in BigBlue Button — bigbluebutton 4.3 Medium2022-06-01
CVE-2022-26857 Dell OpenManage Enterprise 安全漏洞 — OpenManage Enterprise 9.0 Critical2022-05-26
CVE-2021-27772 HCL Sametime is vulnerable to an information disclosure — Sametime 7.1 High2022-05-12
CVE-2022-0027 Cortex XSOAR: Incorrect Authorization Vulnerability When Generating Reports — Cortex XSOAR 4.3 Medium2022-05-11
CVE-2021-43939 Elcomplus SmartPtt Improper Authorization — SmartPTT 8.8 High2022-04-28

Vulnerabilities classified as CWE-285 (授权机制不恰当) represent 986 CVEs. The CWE taxonomy describes the weakness; review individual CVEs for product-specific impact.