Description
The 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.
Potential Impact
Confidentiality
Read Application Data, Read Files or Directories
Integrity
Modify Application Data, Modify Files or Directories
Access Control
Gain Privileges or Assume Identity, Bypass Protection Mechanism
Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability
Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
Availability
DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart, DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU), DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory), DoS: Resource Consumption (Other)
Demonstrative Examples
$role = $_COOKIES['role'];if (!$role) {$role = getRole('user');if ($role) {// save the cookie to send out in future responsessetcookie("role", $role, time()+60*60*2);}else{ShowLoginScreen();die("\n");}}if ($role == 'Reader') {DisplayMedicalHistory($_POST['patient_ID']);}else{die("You are not Authorized to view this record\n");}Mitigations & Prevention
Divide 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) [REF-229] 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.
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied 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 the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
Use 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].
For 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 that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated wit
Use 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.
Detection Methods
- Automated Static Analysis Limited — 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
- Automated Dynamic Analysis — Automated dynamic analysis may not be able to find interfaces that are protected by authorization checks, even if those checks contain weaknesses.
- Manual Analysis Moderate — 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 eval
- Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode SOAR Partial — According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
- Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation SOAR Partial — According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
- Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation SOAR Partial — According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Real-World CVE Examples
| CVE ID | Description |
|---|---|
| CVE-2025-24839 | collaboration platform allows attacker to access an AI bot by using a plugin to set a critical property |
| CVE-2025-32796 | LLM application development platform allows non-admin users to enable or disable apps using certain API endpoints |
| CVE-2021-39155 | Chain: A microservice integration and management platform compares the hostname in the HTTP Host header in a case-sensitive way (CWE-178, CWE-1289), allowing bypass of the authorization policy (CWE-86 |
| CVE-2019-15900 | Chain: sscanf() call is used to check if a username and group exists, but the return value of sscanf() call is not checked (CWE-252), causing an uninitialized variable to be checked (CWE-457), returni |
| CVE-2009-2213 | Gateway uses default "Allow" configuration for its authorization settings. |
| CVE-2009-0034 | Chain: product does not properly interpret a configuration option for a system group, allowing users to gain privileges. |
| CVE-2008-6123 | Chain: SNMP product does not properly parse a configuration option for which hosts are allowed to connect, allowing unauthorized IP addresses to connect. |
| CVE-2008-7109 | Chain: reliance on client-side security (CWE-602) allows attackers to bypass authorization using a custom client. |
| CVE-2008-3424 | Chain: product does not properly handle wildcards in an authorization policy list, allowing unintended access. |
| CVE-2008-4577 | ACL-based protection mechanism treats negative access rights as if they are positive, allowing bypass of intended restrictions. |
| CVE-2006-6679 | Product relies on the X-Forwarded-For HTTP header for authorization, allowing unintended access by spoofing the header. |
| CVE-2005-2801 | Chain: file-system code performs an incorrect comparison (CWE-697), preventing default ACLs from being properly applied. |
| CVE-2001-1155 | Chain: product does not properly check the result of a reverse DNS lookup because of operator precedence (CWE-783), allowing bypass of DNS-based access restrictions. |
Related Weaknesses
Taxonomy Mappings
- ISA/IEC 62443: Part 4-1 — Req SD-4
- ISA/IEC 62443: Part 4-2 — Req CR 2.1
- ISA/IEC 62443: Part 4-2 — Req CR 2.2
- ISA/IEC 62443: Part 3-3 — Req SR 2.1
- ISA/IEC 62443: Part 3-3 — Req SR 2.2
- ISA/IEC 62443: Part 4-1 — Req SVV-1
- ISA/IEC 62443: Part 4-1 — Req SVV-4
- ISA/IEC 62443: Part 4-1 — Req SD-1
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CWE-863?
CWE-863 (Incorrect Authorization) is a software weakness identified by MITRE's Common Weakness Enumeration. It is classified as a Class-level weakness. The 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.
How can CWE-863 be exploited?
Attackers can exploit CWE-863 (Incorrect Authorization) to read application data, read files or directories. This weakness is typically introduced during the Architecture and Design, Implementation, Operation phase of software development.
How do I prevent CWE-863?
Key mitigations include: Divide 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)
What is the severity of CWE-863?
CWE-863 is classified as a Class-level weakness (High abstraction). It has been observed in 13 real-world CVEs.