According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Inter-application Flow Analysis
Method
Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode
Description
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
Method
Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation
Description
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Host-based Vulnerability Scanners - Examine configuration for flaws, verifying that audit mechanisms work, ensure host configuration meets certain predefined criteria Web Application Scanner Web Services Scanner Database Scanners
Method
Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation
Description
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Host Application Interface Scanner Cost effective for partial coverage: Fuzz Tester Framework-based Fuzzer Automated Monitored Execution Forced Path Execution
Effectiveness
High
Method
Manual Static Analysis - Source Code
Description
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Manual Source Code Review (not inspections) Cost effective for partial coverage: Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source
Effectiveness
High
Method
Automated Static Analysis - Source Code
Description
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer
Method
Automated Static Analysis
Description
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Configuration Checker
Method
Architecture or Design Review
Description
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.)
Additional facts reviewed against primary or authoritative security sources.
Combine analysis methods around the CWE-276 trust boundary
MITRE identifies binary review, dynamic analysis, manual source review, automated static analysis as applicable detection approaches. Use them to inspect creation modes, inherited access-control lists, umask behavior, container security contexts, and installer defaults before sensitive files or services become reachable. Require a reproducible trace from the initiating input or state transition to the unsafe behavior, record coverage gaps, and confirm suspected findings dynamically where safe; no single technique establishes complete coverage.
Apply Separation of Privilege controls for Incorrect Default Permissions
MITRE associates mitigation with Architecture and Design, and Operation; the listed strategies include Separation of Privilege; documented detection approaches include Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode, Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode, Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation, and Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation. Use these source-defined anchors to turn CWE-276 into implementation, review, and verification checks for the affected component.
Declare restrictive runtime ownership and permission defaults
Set explicit non-root identities, group ownership, privilege settings, and filesystem permissions in deployment configuration instead of inheriting permissive image or platform defaults. Keep writable paths narrow, avoid privileged containers, and verify mounted volumes receive the intended ownership. Apply equivalent explicit defaults to non-container installers and service accounts.
NVD maps CVE-2024-51378 to CWE-276; incorrect default permissions enabled authentication bypass and arbitrary command execution through shell metacharacters in the statusfile property. Use the case to test a clean installation before hardening, remove unauthenticated access to privileged handlers, and ensure default ownership and modes match the documented security boundary.
CWE-276 ranked #25 in the 2023 CWE Top 25 with a score of 3.16. Use this annual evidence to prioritize systemic prevention, detection coverage, and recurring-root-cause metrics across the portfolio, while retaining asset exposure, exploitability, and business impact for severity decisions on individual findings.
Verify creation permissions under the production identity and umask
Create every sensitive file, directory, socket, and IPC object using the real service identity, startup environment, and deployment mechanism, then inspect the resulting mode and ACL. Repeat with fresh installation, upgrade, restore, and volume-mount paths. Verify the process umask and explicit creation mode cannot grant unintended group or world access, including during the interval before later chmod calls.
CWE-276: Incorrect Default Permissions is a Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) entry maintained by MITRE. During installation, installed file permissions are set to allow anyone to modify those files.
Is CWE-276 in the CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses?+
Yes. CWE-276 ranked #25 in the CWE Top 25 for 2023, associated with 178 CVEs that year. The CWE Top 25 highlights the most common and impactful software weaknesses based on real-world vulnerability data.
What are the security consequences of Incorrect Default Permissions?+
If exploited, CWE-276 (Incorrect Default Permissions) it can compromise Confidentiality and Integrity, leading to outcomes such as Read Application Data and Modify Application Data.
How is Incorrect Default Permissions detected?+
CWE-276 can be detected using Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode, Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode, Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation, Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation, Manual Static Analysis - Source Code and Automated Static Analysis - Source Code. Combining automated tooling with manual review typically yields the best coverage.
Which programming languages are affected by Incorrect Default Permissions?+
CWE-276 commonly affects Not Language-Specific. Note that weaknesses are often language-agnostic patterns, so secure coding practices apply broadly.
What are real-world examples of Incorrect Default Permissions?+
MITRE documents real CVEs mapped to CWE-276, including CVE-2005-1941, CVE-2002-1713, CVE-2001-1550, CVE-2002-1711 and CVE-2002-1844. You can look up the full details of each CVE, including CVSS scores and remediation guidance, on our CVE Lookup tool.
What is the difference between a CWE and a CVE?+
A CWE (Common Weakness Enumeration) like CWE-276 describes a category of software weakness — the underlying flaw type. A CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures) identifies a specific, real-world vulnerability in a particular product. In short, a CWE is the kind of mistake, and a CVE is an instance of that mistake being found in software.