Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource |
Weakness ID: 732 (Weakness Class) | Status: Draft |
Description Summary
Extended Description
When a resource is given a permissions setting that provides access to a wider range of actors than required, it could lead to the disclosure of sensitive information, or the modification of that resource by unintended parties. This is especially dangerous when the resource is related to program configuration, execution or sensitive user data.
The developer may set loose permissions in order to minimize problems when the user first runs the program, then create documentation stating that permissions should be tightened. Since system administrators and users do not always read the documentation, this can result in insecure permissions being left unchanged. |
The developer might make certain assumptions about the environment in which the software runs - e.g., that the software is running on a single-user system, or the software is only accessible to trusted administrators. When the software is running in a different environment, the permissions become a problem. |
Scope | Effect |
---|---|
Confidentiality | An attacker may be able to read sensitive information from the associated resource, such as credentials or configuration information stored in a file. |
Integrity | An attacker may be able to modify critical properties of the associated resource to gain privileges, such as replacing a world-writable executable with a Trojan horse. |
Availability | An attacker may be able to destroy or corrupt critical data in the associated resource, such as deletion of records from a database. |
Automated Static Analysis Automated static analysis may be effective in detecting permission problems for system resources such as files, directories, shared memory, device interfaces, etc. Automated techniques may be able to detect the use of library functions that modify permissions, then analyze function calls for arguments that contain potentially insecure values. However, since the software's intended security policy might allow loose permissions for certain operations (such as publishing a file on a web server), automated static analysis may produce some false positives - i.e., warnings that do not have any security consequences or require any code changes. When custom permissions models are used - such as defining who can read messages in a particular forum in a bulletin board system - these can be difficult to detect using automated static analysis. It may be possible to define custom signatures that identify any custom functions that implement the permission checks and assignments. |
Automated Dynamic Analysis Automated dynamic analysis may be effective in detecting permission problems for system resources such as files, directories, shared memory, device interfaces, etc. However, since the software's intended security policy might allow loose permissions for certain operations (such as publishing a file on a web server), automated dynamic analysis may produce some false positives - i.e., warnings that do not have any security consequences or require any code changes. When custom permissions models are used - such as defining who can read messages in a particular forum in a bulletin board system - these can be difficult to detect using automated dynamic analysis. It may be possible to define custom signatures that identify any custom functions that implement the permission checks and assignments. |
Manual Static Analysis Manual static analysis may be effective in detecting the use of custom permissions models and functions. The code could then be examined to identifying usage of the related functions. Then the human analyst could evaluate permission assignments in the context of the intended security model of the software. |
Manual Dynamic Analysis Manual dynamic analysis may be effective in detecting the use of custom permissions models and functions. The program could then be executed with a focus on exercising code paths that are related to the custom permissions. Then the human analyst could evaluate permission assignments in the context of the intended security model of the software. |
Fuzzing Fuzzing is not effective in detecting this weakness. |
Example 1
The following code sets the umask of the process to 0 before creating a file and writing "Hello world" into the file.
After running this program on a UNIX system, running the "ls -l" command might return the following output:
The "rw-rw-rw-" string indicates that the owner, group, and world (all users) can read the file and write to it.
Example 2
The following code snippet might be used as a monitor to periodically record whether a web site is alive. To ensure that the file can always be modified, the code uses chmod() to make the file world-writable.
The first time the program runs, it might create a new file that inherits the permissions from its environment. A file listing might look like:
This listing might occur when the user has a default umask of 022, which is a common setting. Depending on the nature of the file, the user might not have intended to make it readable by everyone on the system.
The next time the program runs, however - and all subsequent executions - the chmod will set the file's permissions so that the owner, group, and world (all users) can read the file and write to it:
Perhaps the programmer tried to do this because a different process uses different permissions that might prevent the file from being updated.
Example 3
The following command recursively sets world-readable permissions for a directory and all of its children:
If this command is run from a program, the person calling the program might not expect that all the files under the directory will be world-readable. If the directory is expected to contain private data, this could become a security problem.
Reference | Description |
---|---|
CVE-2009-3482 | Anti-virus product sets insecure "Everyone: Full Control" permissions for files under the "Program Files" folder, allowing attackers to replace executables with Trojan horses. |
CVE-2009-3897 | Product creates directories with 0777 permissions at installation, allowing users to gain privileges and access a socket used for authentication. |
CVE-2009-3489 | Photo editor installs a service with an insecure security descriptor, allowing users to stop or start the service, or execute commands as SYSTEM. |
CVE-2009-3289 | Library function copies a file to a new target and uses the source file's permissions for the target, which is incorrect when the source file is a symbolic link, which typically has 0777 permissions. |
CVE-2009-0115 | Device driver uses world-writable permissions for a socket file, allowing attackers to inject arbitrary commands. |
CVE-2009-1073 | LDAP server stores a cleartext password in a world-readable file. |
CVE-2009-0141 | Terminal emulator creates TTY devices with world-writable permissions, allowing an attacker to write to the terminals of other users. |
CVE-2008-0662 | VPN product stores user credentials in a registry key with "Everyone: Full Control" permissions, allowing attackers to steal the credentials. |
CVE-2008-0322 | Driver installs its device interface with "Everyone: Write" permissions. |
CVE-2009-3939 | Driver installs a file with world-writable permissions. |
CVE-2009-3611 | Product changes permissions to 0777 before deleting a backup; the permissions stay insecure for subsequent backups. |
CVE-2007-6033 | Product creates a share with "Everyone: Full Control" permissions, allowing arbitrary program execution. |
CVE-2007-5544 | Product uses "Everyone: Full Control" permissions for memory-mapped files (shared memory) in inter-process communication, allowing attackers to tamper with a session. |
CVE-2005-4868 | Database product uses read/write permissions for everyone for its shared memory, allowing theft of credentials. |
CVE-2004-1714 | Security product uses "Everyone: Full Control" permissions for its configuration files. |
CVE-2001-0006 | "Everyone: Full Control" permissions assigned to a mutex allows users to disable network connectivity. |
CVE-2002-0969 | Chain: database product contains buffer overflow that is only reachable through a .ini configuration file - which has "Everyone: Full Control" permissions. |
Phase: Architecture and Design 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), 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. |
Phase: Architecture and Design Divide your application 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. |
Phases: Implementation; Installation 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. |
Phase: System Configuration For all configuration files, executables, and libraries, make sure that they are only readable and writable by the software's administrator. |
Phase: Documentation Do not suggest insecure configuration changes in your documentation, especially if those configurations can extend to resources and other software that are outside the scope of your own software. |
Phase: Installation Do not assume that the system administrator will manually change the configuration to the settings that you recommend in the manual. |
Phase: Testing Use 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. These may be more effective than strictly automated techniques. This is especially the case with weaknesses that are related to design and business rules. |
Phase: Testing Use monitoring tools that examine the software's process as it interacts with the operating system and the network. This technique is useful in cases when source code is unavailable, if the software was not developed by you, or if you want to verify that the build phase did not introduce any new weaknesses. Examples include debuggers that directly attach to the running process; system-call tracing utilities such as truss (Solaris) and strace (Linux); system activity monitors such as FileMon, RegMon, Process Monitor, and other Sysinternals utilities (Windows); and sniffers and protocol analyzers that monitor network traffic. Attach the monitor to the process and watch for library functions or system calls on OS resources such as files, directories, and shared memory. Examine the arguments to these calls to infer which permissions are being used. Note that this technique is only useful for permissions issues related to system resources. It is not likely to detect application-level business rules that are related to permissions, such as if a user of a blog system marks a post as "private," but the blog system inadvertently marks it as "public." |
Phases: Testing; System Configuration Ensure that your software runs properly under the Federal Desktop Core Configuration (FDCC) or an equivalent hardening configuration guide, which many organizations use to limit the attack surface and potential risk of deployed software. |
Nature | Type | ID | Name | View(s) this relationship pertains to |
---|---|---|---|---|
ChildOf | Category | 275 | Permission Issues | Development Concepts (primary)699 |
ChildOf | Weakness Class | 668 | Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere | Research Concepts (primary)1000 |
ChildOf | Category | 753 | 2009 Top 25 - Porous Defenses | Weaknesses in the 2009 CWE/SANS Top 25 Most Dangerous Programming Errors (primary)750 |
ChildOf | Category | 803 | 2010 Top 25 - Porous Defenses | Weaknesses in the 2010 CWE/SANS Top 25 Most Dangerous Programming Errors (primary)800 |
RequiredBy | Compound Element: Composite | 689 | Permission Race Condition During Resource Copy | Research Concepts1000 |
ParentOf | Weakness Variant | 276 | Incorrect Default Permissions | Research Concepts (primary)1000 |
ParentOf | Weakness Variant | 277 | Insecure Inherited Permissions | Research Concepts (primary)1000 |
ParentOf | Weakness Variant | 278 | Insecure Preserved Inherited Permissions | Research Concepts (primary)1000 |
ParentOf | Weakness Variant | 279 | Incorrect Execution-Assigned Permissions | Research Concepts (primary)1000 |
ParentOf | Weakness Base | 281 | Improper Preservation of Permissions | Research Concepts (primary)1000 |
Mark Dowd, John McDonald and Justin Schuh. "The Art of Software Security Assessment". Chapter 9, "File Permissions." Page 495.. 1st Edition. Addison Wesley. 2006. |
John Viega and Gary McGraw. "Building Secure Software". Chapter 8, "Access Control." Page 194.. 1st Edition. Addison-Wesley. 2002. |
The relationships between privileges, permissions, and actors (e.g. users and groups) need further refinement within the Research view. One complication is that these concepts apply to two different pillars, related to control of resources (CWE-664) and protection mechanism failures (CWE-396). |
Submissions | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Submission Date | Submitter | Organization | Source | |
2008-09-08 | Internal CWE Team | |||
new weakness-focused entry for Research view. | ||||
Modifications | ||||
Modification Date | Modifier | Organization | Source | |
2009-01-12 | CWE Content Team | MITRE | Internal | |
updated Description, Likelihood of Exploit, Name, Potential Mitigations, Relationships | ||||
2009-03-10 | CWE Content Team | MITRE | Internal | |
updated Potential Mitigations, Related Attack Patterns | ||||
2009-05-27 | CWE Content Team | MITRE | Internal | |
updated Name | ||||
2009-12-28 | CWE Content Team | MITRE | Internal | |
updated Applicable Platforms, Common Consequences, Demonstrative Examples, Detection Factors, Modes of Introduction, Observed Examples, Potential Mitigations, References | ||||
Previous Entry Names | ||||
Change Date | Previous Entry Name | |||
2009-01-12 | Insecure Permission Assignment for Resource | |||
2009-05-27 | Insecure Permission Assignment for Critical Resource | |||