CWE-732
Allowed-with-ReviewIncorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource
Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft
The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.
2075 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-798Q-FHCC-4R5J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-07-28 15:31 – Updated: 2025-11-03 21:34An incorrect default permissions vulnerability exists in the CServerSettings::SetRegistryValues functionality of MedDream PACS Premium 7.3.3.840. A specially crafted application can decrypt credentials stored in a configuration-related registry key. An attacker can execute a malicious script or application to exploit this vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-26469"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-732"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-07-28T14:15:26Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "An incorrect default permissions vulnerability exists in the CServerSettings::SetRegistryValues functionality of MedDream PACS Premium 7.3.3.840.\nA specially crafted application can decrypt credentials stored in a configuration-related registry key.\nAn attacker can execute a malicious script or application to exploit this vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-798q-fhcc-4r5j",
"modified": "2025-11-03T21:34:11Z",
"published": "2025-07-28T15:31:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-26469"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://talosintelligence.com/vulnerability_reports/TALOS-2025-2154"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.talosintelligence.com/vulnerability_reports/TALOS-2025-2154"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-799C-G7RJ-XF44
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-03-28 21:30 – Updated: 2023-04-04 03:30RoboDK versions 5.5.3 and prior contain an insecure permission assignment to critical directories vulnerability, which could allow a local user to escalate privileges and write files to the RoboDK process and achieve code execution.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-1516"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-732"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-03-28T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "RoboDK versions 5.5.3 and prior contain an insecure permission assignment to critical directories vulnerability, which could allow a local user to escalate privileges and write files to the RoboDK process and achieve code execution.",
"id": "GHSA-799c-g7rj-xf44",
"modified": "2023-04-04T03:30:16Z",
"published": "2023-03-28T21:30:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-1516"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://robodk.com/contact"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/ics-advisories/icsa-23-082-01"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-79MR-4RJJ-F8FV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:52 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:52Improper directory permissions in the installer for the Intel Media Server Studio may allow unprivileged users to potentially enable an escalation of privilege via local access.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-3697"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-732"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2018-11-14T14:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Improper directory permissions in the installer for the Intel Media Server Studio may allow unprivileged users to potentially enable an escalation of privilege via local access.",
"id": "GHSA-79mr-4rjj-f8fv",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:52:35Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:52:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-3697"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/security-center/advisory/INTEL-SA-00197.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/106025"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-79PF-VX4X-7JMM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-04 22:38 – Updated: 2026-03-05 22:50Summary
A broken access control vulnerability in the TUS protocol DELETE endpoint allows authenticated users with only Create permission to delete arbitrary files and directories within their scope, bypassing the intended Delete permission restriction. Any multi-user deployment where administrators explicitly restrict file deletion for certain users is affected.
Details
The tusDeleteHandler function in http/tus_handlers.go incorrectly gates the DELETE operation behind Perm.Create instead of Perm.Delete:
// http/tus_handlers.go - tusDeleteHandler (VULNERABLE)
func tusDeleteHandler(cache UploadCache) handleFunc {
return withUser(func(_ http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request, d *data) (int, error) {
if r.URL.Path == "/" || !d.user.Perm.Create { // ← Wrong permission checked
return http.StatusForbidden, nil
}
// ...
err = d.user.Fs.RemoveAll(r.URL.Path) // File is deleted
The correct resourceDeleteHandler in http/resource.go properly checks Perm.Delete:
// http/resource.go - resourceDeleteHandler (CORRECT)
func resourceDeleteHandler(fileCache FileCache) handleFunc {
return withUser(func(_ http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request, d *data) (int, error) {
if r.URL.Path == "/" || !d.user.Perm.Delete { // ← Correct permission
return http.StatusForbidden, nil
}
This inconsistency means that DELETE /api/tus/{path} and DELETE /api/resources/{path} enforce entirely different permission models for the same underlying filesystem operation. The TUS endpoint was introduced to support resumable uploads (http/tus_handlers.go) and its DELETE handler is intended to cancel in-progress uploads -however, the RemoveAll call permanently removes the file from the filesystem regardless of how the upload was initiated.
Proposed fix:
// http/tus_handlers.go
- if r.URL.Path == "/" || !d.user.Perm.Create {
+ if r.URL.Path == "/" || !d.user.Perm.Delete {
PoC
- filebrowser built from latest master (git clone https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser)
- Tested on: Kali Linux, go version go1.23+
Setup section
# Build and initialize
git clone https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser
cd filebrowser
go build -o filebrowser .
./filebrowser config init
# Create a test user with Create=true but Delete=false
./filebrowser users add testuser SuperSecurePassword1234 \
--perm.create=true \
--perm.delete=false
# Start server
./filebrowser &
POC script steps
- Confirm the Delete permission is correctly enforced on the standard endpoint:
TOKEN=$(curl -s -X POST localhost:8080/api/login \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"username":"testuser","password":"SuperSecurePassword1234"}')
# Attempt deletion via the standard resource endpoint → should be blocked
curl -s -X DELETE "localhost:8080/api/resources/target.txt" \
-H "X-Auth: $TOKEN" \
-w "HTTP Status: %{http_code}\n"
# Expected: HTTP Status: 403
- Bypass via the TUS Delete endpoint:
# Initiate a TUS upload to register the file in the upload cache
curl -s -X POST "localhost:8080/api/tus/target.txt" \
-H "X-Auth: $TOKEN" \
-H "Upload-Length: 18" \
-w "HTTP Status: %{http_code}\n"
# Expected: HTTP Status: 201
# Now delete via the TUS endpoint - Perm.Delete is NOT checked
curl -s -X DELETE "localhost:8080/api/tus/target.txt" \
-H "X-Auth: $TOKEN" \
-w "HTTP Status: %{http_code}\n"
# Expected: HTTP Status: 204 ← File deleted despite Perm.Delete=false
Observed results:
DELETE /api/resources/target.txt --> 403 Forbidden ( permission enforced )
DELETE /api/tus/target.txt --> 204 No Content ( permission bypassed )
Impact
This is a broken access control vulnerability (IDOR / permission model bypass). It affects any filebrowser deployment where:
- Multiple users share a single instance, and
- An administrator has explicitly set Perm.Delete=false for one or more users to restrict destructive operations
An attacker (authenticated user with Perm.Create=true) can permanently delete any file or directory within their assigned scope-including files they did not create - by initiating a TUS upload against the target path and immediately issuing a TUS DELETE request. This completely undermines the intended access control model, as administrators have no reliable way to prevent file deletion for users who retain upload rights.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.61.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.61.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-29188"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284",
"CWE-732"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-04T22:38:01Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-05T21:16:23Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nA broken access control vulnerability in the TUS protocol DELETE endpoint allows authenticated users with only Create permission to delete arbitrary files and directories within their scope, bypassing the intended Delete permission restriction. Any multi-user deployment where administrators explicitly restrict file deletion for certain users is affected.\n\n### Details\n\nThe tusDeleteHandler function in http/tus_handlers.go incorrectly gates the DELETE operation behind Perm.Create instead of Perm.Delete:\n\n```go\n// http/tus_handlers.go - tusDeleteHandler (VULNERABLE)\nfunc tusDeleteHandler(cache UploadCache) handleFunc {\n return withUser(func(_ http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request, d *data) (int, error) {\n if r.URL.Path == \"/\" || !d.user.Perm.Create { // \u2190 Wrong permission checked\n return http.StatusForbidden, nil\n }\n // ...\n err = d.user.Fs.RemoveAll(r.URL.Path) // File is deleted\n```\n\nThe correct resourceDeleteHandler in http/resource.go properly checks Perm.Delete:\n\n```go\n// http/resource.go - resourceDeleteHandler (CORRECT)\nfunc resourceDeleteHandler(fileCache FileCache) handleFunc {\n return withUser(func(_ http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request, d *data) (int, error) {\n if r.URL.Path == \"/\" || !d.user.Perm.Delete { // \u2190 Correct permission\n return http.StatusForbidden, nil\n }\n```\n\nThis inconsistency means that DELETE /api/tus/{path} and DELETE /api/resources/{path} enforce entirely different permission models for the same underlying filesystem operation. The TUS endpoint was introduced to support resumable uploads (http/tus_handlers.go) and its DELETE handler is intended to cancel in-progress uploads -however, the RemoveAll call permanently removes the file from the filesystem regardless of how the upload was initiated.\n\n### Proposed fix:\n\n```go\n// http/tus_handlers.go\n- if r.URL.Path == \"/\" || !d.user.Perm.Create {\n+ if r.URL.Path == \"/\" || !d.user.Perm.Delete {\n```\n\n### PoC\n\n- filebrowser built from latest master (git clone https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser) \n- Tested on: Kali Linux, go version go1.23+\n\n### Setup section\n\n```bash\n# Build and initialize\ngit clone https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser\ncd filebrowser\ngo build -o filebrowser .\n./filebrowser config init\n\n# Create a test user with Create=true but Delete=false\n./filebrowser users add testuser SuperSecurePassword1234 \\\n --perm.create=true \\\n --perm.delete=false\n\n# Start server\n./filebrowser \u0026\n```\n\n### POC script steps\n\n1. Confirm the Delete permission is correctly enforced on the standard endpoint:\n\n```bash\nTOKEN=$(curl -s -X POST localhost:8080/api/login \\\n -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n -d \u0027{\"username\":\"testuser\",\"password\":\"SuperSecurePassword1234\"}\u0027)\n\n# Attempt deletion via the standard resource endpoint \u2192 should be blocked\ncurl -s -X DELETE \"localhost:8080/api/resources/target.txt\" \\\n -H \"X-Auth: $TOKEN\" \\\n -w \"HTTP Status: %{http_code}\\n\"\n\n# Expected: HTTP Status: 403\n```\n\n2. Bypass via the TUS Delete endpoint:\n\n```bash\n# Initiate a TUS upload to register the file in the upload cache\ncurl -s -X POST \"localhost:8080/api/tus/target.txt\" \\\n -H \"X-Auth: $TOKEN\" \\\n -H \"Upload-Length: 18\" \\\n -w \"HTTP Status: %{http_code}\\n\"\n\n# Expected: HTTP Status: 201\n\n# Now delete via the TUS endpoint - Perm.Delete is NOT checked\ncurl -s -X DELETE \"localhost:8080/api/tus/target.txt\" \\\n -H \"X-Auth: $TOKEN\" \\\n -w \"HTTP Status: %{http_code}\\n\"\n\n# Expected: HTTP Status: 204 \u2190 File deleted despite Perm.Delete=false\n```\n\n**Observed results:**\n```\nDELETE /api/resources/target.txt --\u003e 403 Forbidden ( permission enforced )\nDELETE /api/tus/target.txt --\u003e 204 No Content ( permission bypassed )\n```\n\n### Impact\nThis is a broken access control vulnerability (IDOR / permission model bypass). It affects any filebrowser deployment where:\n\n- Multiple users share a single instance, and\n- An administrator has explicitly set Perm.Delete=false for one or more users to restrict destructive operations\n\nAn attacker (authenticated user with Perm.Create=true) can permanently delete any file or directory within their assigned scope-including files they did not create - by initiating a TUS upload against the target path and immediately issuing a TUS DELETE request. This completely undermines the intended access control model, as administrators have no reliable way to prevent file deletion for users who retain upload rights.",
"id": "GHSA-79pf-vx4x-7jmm",
"modified": "2026-03-05T22:50:21Z",
"published": "2026-03-04T22:38:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/security/advisories/GHSA-79pf-vx4x-7jmm"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-29188"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/commit/7ed1425115be602c2b23236c410098ea2d74b42f"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/releases/tag/v2.61.1"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "File Browser\u0027s TUS Delete Endpoint Bypasses Delete Permission Check"
}
GHSA-7C4M-FM4F-HJXX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-06-04 15:30 – Updated: 2025-06-04 15:30Local privilege escalation due to insecure folder permissions. The following products are affected: Acronis Cyber Protect 16 (Windows) before build 39938.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-48961"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-732"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-06-04T14:15:29Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Local privilege escalation due to insecure folder permissions. The following products are affected: Acronis Cyber Protect 16 (Windows) before build 39938.",
"id": "GHSA-7c4m-fm4f-hjxx",
"modified": "2025-06-04T15:30:40Z",
"published": "2025-06-04T15:30:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-48961"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security-advisory.acronis.com/advisories/SEC-8000"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7C5G-CJM9-2JM4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-02-19 00:01 – Updated: 2023-08-08 15:31RigoBlock Dragos through 2022-02-17 lacks the onlyOwner modifier for setMultipleAllowances. This enables token manipulation, as exploited in the wild in February 2022. NOTE: although 2022-02-17 is the vendor's vulnerability announcement date, the vulnerability will not be remediated until a major protocol upgrade occurs.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-25335"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-732"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-02-18T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "RigoBlock Dragos through 2022-02-17 lacks the onlyOwner modifier for setMultipleAllowances. This enables token manipulation, as exploited in the wild in February 2022. NOTE: although 2022-02-17 is the vendor\u0027s vulnerability announcement date, the vulnerability will not be remediated until a major protocol upgrade occurs.",
"id": "GHSA-7c5g-cjm9-2jm4",
"modified": "2023-08-08T15:31:44Z",
"published": "2022-02-19T00:01:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-25335"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://etherscan.io/contractdiffchecker?a1=0x876b9ebd725d1fa0b879fcee12560a6453b51dc8"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://etherscan.io/tx/0x5a6c108d5a729be2011cd47590583a04444d4e7c85cd0427071b968edc3bfc1f"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://raw.globalsecuritydatabase.org/GSD-2022-1000077"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://twitter.com/RigoBlock/status/1494351180713050116"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://twitter.com/danielvf/status/1494317265835147272"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7CM3-M8RX-JCVP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-03-11 00:02 – Updated: 2022-03-17 00:02Ericsson Network Manager 20.2 has Insecure Permissions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-28488"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-269",
"CWE-732"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-03-10T17:42:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Ericsson Network Manager 20.2 has Insecure Permissions.",
"id": "GHSA-7cm3-m8rx-jcvp",
"modified": "2022-03-17T00:02:05Z",
"published": "2022-03-11T00:02:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-28488"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ericsson.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ericsson.com/en/about-us/enterprise-security/psirt"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.gruppotim.it/it/footer/red-team.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7F2X-WWJ8-9HWF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-01-15 09:30 – Updated: 2024-01-22 21:31pkg_postinst in the Gentoo ebuild for Slurm through 22.05.3 unnecessarily calls chown to assign root's ownership on files in the live root filesystem. This could be exploited by the slurm user to become the owner of root-owned files.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-36770"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-732"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-01-15T07:15:07Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "pkg_postinst in the Gentoo ebuild for Slurm through 22.05.3 unnecessarily calls chown to assign root\u0027s ownership on files in the live root filesystem. This could be exploited by the slurm user to become the owner of root-owned files.",
"id": "GHSA-7f2x-wwj8-9hwf",
"modified": "2024-01-22T21:31:06Z",
"published": "2024-01-15T09:30:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-36770"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugs.gentoo.org/631552"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7F4H-7G5J-9333
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:42 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:42In webERP 4.15, the ManualContents.php file allows users to specify the "Language" parameter, which can lead to local file inclusion.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-22474"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-732"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-02-22T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In webERP 4.15, the ManualContents.php file allows users to specify the \"Language\" parameter, which can lead to local file inclusion.",
"id": "GHSA-7f4h-7g5j-9333",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:42:47Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:42:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-22474"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lyhinslab.org/index.php/2020/05/16/weberp-lfi"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-7F6G-27RF-R8F2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:47 – Updated: 2022-07-13 00:01An issue was discovered in Zulip Server before 3.4. A bug in the implementation of the can_forge_sender permission (previously is_api_super_user) resulted in users with this permission being able to send messages appearing as if sent by a system bot, including to other organizations hosted by the same Zulip installation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-30478"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-732"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-04-15T00:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in Zulip Server before 3.4. A bug in the implementation of the can_forge_sender permission (previously is_api_super_user) resulted in users with this permission being able to send messages appearing as if sent by a system bot, including to other organizations hosted by the same Zulip installation.",
"id": "GHSA-7f6g-27rf-r8f2",
"modified": "2022-07-13T00:01:21Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:47:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-30478"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.zulip.com/2021/04/14/zulip-server-3-4"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation
When using a critical resource such as a configuration file, check to see if the resource has insecure permissions (such as being modifiable by any regular user) [REF-62], and generate an error or even exit the software if there is a possibility that the resource could have been modified by an unauthorized party.
Mitigation
Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully defining distinct user groups, privileges, and/or roles. Map these against data, functionality, and the related resources. Then set the permissions accordingly. This will allow you to maintain more fine-grained control over your resources. [REF-207]
Mitigation MIT-22
Strategy: Sandbox or Jail
- Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
- OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.
- This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.
- Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
Mitigation
During program startup, explicitly set the default permissions or umask to the most restrictive setting possible. Also set the appropriate permissions during program installation. This will prevent you from inheriting insecure permissions from any user who installs or runs the program.
Mitigation
For all configuration files, executables, and libraries, make sure that they are only readable and writable by the software's administrator.
Mitigation
Do not suggest insecure configuration changes in documentation, especially if those configurations can extend to resources and other programs that are outside the scope of the application.
Mitigation
Do not assume that a system administrator will manually change the configuration to the settings that are recommended in the software's manual.
Mitigation MIT-37
Strategy: Environment Hardening
Ensure that the software runs properly under the United States Government Configuration Baseline (USGCB) [REF-199] or an equivalent hardening configuration guide, which many organizations use to limit the attack surface and potential risk of deployed software.
Mitigation
When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to disable public access.
CAPEC-1: Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs
In applications, particularly web applications, access to functionality is mitigated by an authorization framework. This framework maps Access Control Lists (ACLs) to elements of the application's functionality; particularly URL's for web apps. In the case that the administrator failed to specify an ACL for a particular element, an attacker may be able to access it with impunity. An attacker with the ability to access functionality not properly constrained by ACLs can obtain sensitive information and possibly compromise the entire application. Such an attacker can access resources that must be available only to users at a higher privilege level, can access management sections of the application, or can run queries for data that they otherwise not supposed to.
CAPEC-122: Privilege Abuse
An adversary is able to exploit features of the target that should be reserved for privileged users or administrators but are exposed to use by lower or non-privileged accounts. Access to sensitive information and functionality must be controlled to ensure that only authorized users are able to access these resources.
CAPEC-127: Directory Indexing
An adversary crafts a request to a target that results in the target listing/indexing the content of a directory as output. One common method of triggering directory contents as output is to construct a request containing a path that terminates in a directory name rather than a file name since many applications are configured to provide a list of the directory's contents when such a request is received. An adversary can use this to explore the directory tree on a target as well as learn the names of files. This can often end up revealing test files, backup files, temporary files, hidden files, configuration files, user accounts, script contents, as well as naming conventions, all of which can be used by an attacker to mount additional attacks.
CAPEC-17: Using Malicious Files
An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an adversary to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an adversary to upload a file and then execute it. Web servers, ftp servers, and message oriented middleware systems which have many integration points are particularly vulnerable, because both the programmers and the administrators must be in synch regarding the interfaces and the correct privileges for each interface.
CAPEC-180: Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels
An attacker exploits a weakness in the configuration of access controls and is able to bypass the intended protection that these measures guard against and thereby obtain unauthorized access to the system or network. Sensitive functionality should always be protected with access controls. However configuring all but the most trivial access control systems can be very complicated and there are many opportunities for mistakes. If an attacker can learn of incorrectly configured access security settings, they may be able to exploit this in an attack.
CAPEC-206: Signing Malicious Code
The adversary extracts credentials used for code signing from a production environment and then uses these credentials to sign malicious content with the developer's key. Many developers use signing keys to sign code or hashes of code. When users or applications verify the signatures are accurate they are led to believe that the code came from the owner of the signing key and that the code has not been modified since the signature was applied. If the adversary has extracted the signing credentials then they can use those credentials to sign their own code bundles. Users or tools that verify the signatures attached to the code will likely assume the code came from the legitimate developer and install or run the code, effectively allowing the adversary to execute arbitrary code on the victim's computer. This differs from CAPEC-673, because the adversary is performing the code signing.
CAPEC-234: Hijacking a privileged process
An adversary gains control of a process that is assigned elevated privileges in order to execute arbitrary code with those privileges. Some processes are assigned elevated privileges on an operating system, usually through association with a particular user, group, or role. If an attacker can hijack this process, they will be able to assume its level of privilege in order to execute their own code.
CAPEC-60: Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay)
This attack targets the reuse of valid session ID to spoof the target system in order to gain privileges. The attacker tries to reuse a stolen session ID used previously during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking. Another name for this type of attack is Session Replay.
CAPEC-61: Session Fixation
The attacker induces a client to establish a session with the target software using a session identifier provided by the attacker. Once the user successfully authenticates to the target software, the attacker uses the (now privileged) session identifier in their own transactions. This attack leverages the fact that the target software either relies on client-generated session identifiers or maintains the same session identifiers after privilege elevation.
CAPEC-62: Cross Site Request Forgery
An attacker crafts malicious web links and distributes them (via web pages, email, etc.), typically in a targeted manner, hoping to induce users to click on the link and execute the malicious action against some third-party application. If successful, the action embedded in the malicious link will be processed and accepted by the targeted application with the users' privilege level. This type of attack leverages the persistence and implicit trust placed in user session cookies by many web applications today. In such an architecture, once the user authenticates to an application and a session cookie is created on the user's system, all following transactions for that session are authenticated using that cookie including potential actions initiated by an attacker and simply "riding" the existing session cookie.
CAPEC-642: Replace Binaries
Adversaries know that certain binaries will be regularly executed as part of normal processing. If these binaries are not protected with the appropriate file system permissions, it could be possible to replace them with malware. This malware might be executed at higher system permission levels. A variation of this pattern is to discover self-extracting installation packages that unpack binaries to directories with weak file permissions which it does not clean up appropriately. These binaries can be replaced by malware, which can then be executed.