The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.
View on MITREWhen a resource is given a permission setting that provides access to a wider range of actors than required, it could lead to the exposure 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. For example, consider a misconfigured storage account for the cloud that can be read or written by a public or anonymous user.
An attacker may be able to read sensitive information from the associated resource, such as credentials or configuration information stored in a file.
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.
An attacker may be able to destroy or corrupt critical data in the associated resource, such as deletion of records from a database.
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.
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]
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.
For all configuration files, executables, and libraries, make sure that they are only readable and writable by the software's administrator.
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.
Do not assume that a system administrator will manually change the configuration to the settings that are recommended in the software's manual.
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.
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 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 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 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 is not effective in detecting this weakness.
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
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
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.)
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:
This code creates a home directory for a new user, and makes that user the owner of the directory. If the new directory cannot be owned by the user, the directory is deleted.
Because the optional "mode" argument is omitted from the call to mkdir(), the directory is created with the default permissions 0777. Simply setting the new user as the owner of the directory does not explicitly change the permissions of the directory, leaving it with the default. This default allows any user to read and write to the directory, allowing an attack on the user's files. The code also fails to change the owner group of the directory, which may result in access by unexpected groups.
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 program creates and reads from an admin file to determine privilege information.
If the admin file doesn't exist, the program will create one. In order to create the file, the program must have write privileges to write to the file. After the file is created, the permissions need to be changed to read only.
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.
The following Azure command updates the settings for a storage account:
However, "Allow Blob Public Access" is set to true, meaning that anonymous/public users can access blobs.
The following Azure command updates the settings for a storage account:
However, "Allow Blob Public Access" is set to true, meaning that anonymous/public users can access blobs.
The following Google Cloud Storage command gets the settings for a storage account named 'BUCKET_NAME':
Suppose the command returns the following result:
The following Google Cloud Storage command gets the settings for a storage account named 'BUCKET_NAME':
Suppose the command returns the following result:
Go application for cloud management creates a world-writable sudoers file that allows local attackers to inject sudo rules and escalate privileges to root by winning a race condition.
View DetailsAnti-virus product sets insecure "Everyone: Full Control" permissions for files under the "Program Files" folder, allowing attackers to replace executables with Trojan horses.
View DetailsProduct creates directories with 0777 permissions at installation, allowing users to gain privileges and access a socket used for authentication.
View DetailsPhoto editor installs a service with an insecure security descriptor, allowing users to stop or start the service, or execute commands as SYSTEM.
View DetailsLibrary 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.
View DetailsDevice driver uses world-writable permissions for a socket file, allowing attackers to inject arbitrary commands.
View DetailsTerminal emulator creates TTY devices with world-writable permissions, allowing an attacker to write to the terminals of other users.
View DetailsVPN product stores user credentials in a registry key with "Everyone: Full Control" permissions, allowing attackers to steal the credentials.
View DetailsProduct creates a share with "Everyone: Full Control" permissions, allowing arbitrary program execution.
View DetailsProduct uses "Everyone: Full Control" permissions for memory-mapped files (shared memory) in inter-process communication, allowing attackers to tamper with a session.
View DetailsDatabase product uses read/write permissions for everyone for its shared memory, allowing theft of credentials.
View DetailsSecurity product uses "Everyone: Full Control" permissions for its configuration files.
View Details"Everyone: Full Control" permissions assigned to a mutex allows users to disable network connectivity.
View DetailsChain: database product contains buffer overflow that is only reachable through a .ini configuration file - which has "Everyone: Full Control" permissions.
View DetailsCWE-732: Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource is a Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) entry maintained by MITRE. The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors. When a resource is given a permission setting that provides access to a wider range of actors than required, it could lead to the exposure 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. For example, consider a misconfigured storage account for the cloud that can be read or written by a public or anonymous user.
If exploited, CWE-732 (Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource) it can compromise Confidentiality, Access Control, Integrity and Other, leading to outcomes such as Read Application Data, Read Files or Directories, Gain Privileges or Assume Identity, Modify Application Data and Other.
Recommended mitigations for CWE-732 include: 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. 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] 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.
CWE-732 can be detected using Automated Static Analysis, Automated Dynamic Analysis, Manual Static Analysis, Manual Dynamic Analysis, Fuzzing and Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation. Combining automated tooling with manual review typically yields the best coverage.
CWE-732 commonly affects Not Language-Specific. Note that weaknesses are often language-agnostic patterns, so secure coding practices apply broadly.
MITRE documents real CVEs mapped to CWE-732, including CVE-2022-29527, CVE-2009-3482, CVE-2009-3897, CVE-2009-3489 and CVE-2020-15708. You can look up the full details of each CVE, including CVSS scores and remediation guidance, on our CVE Lookup tool.
A CWE (Common Weakness Enumeration) like CWE-732 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.