The product supports a session in which more than one behavior must be performed by an actor, but it does not properly ensure that the actor performs the behaviors in the required sequence.
View on MITREBy performing actions in an unexpected order, or by omitting steps, an attacker could manipulate the business logic of the product or cause it to enter an invalid state. In some cases, this can also expose resultant weaknesses. For example, a file-sharing protocol might require that an actor perform separate steps to provide a username, then a password, before being able to transfer files. If the file-sharing server accepts a password command followed by a transfer command, without any username being provided, the product might still perform the transfer. Note that this is different than CWE-696, which focuses on when the product performs actions in the wrong sequence; this entry is closely related, but it is focused on ensuring that the actor performs actions in the correct sequence. Workflow-related behaviors include: Steps are performed in the expected order. Required steps are not omitted. Steps are not interrupted. Steps are performed in a timely fashion.
An attacker could cause the product to skip critical steps or perform them in the wrong order, bypassing its intended business logic. This can sometimes have security implications.
No mitigation information available for this CWE.
No detection method information available for this CWE.
This code is part of an FTP server and deals with various commands that could be sent by a user. It is intended that a user must successfully login before performing any other action such as retrieving or listing files.
The server correctly avoids sending files to a user that isn't logged in and doesn't own the file. However, the server will incorrectly list the files in any directory without confirming the command came from an authenticated user, and that the user is authorized to see the directory's contents.
def dispatchCommand(command, user, args): if command == 'Login':loginUser(args)return # user has requested a file if command == 'Retrieve_file': if authenticated(user) and ownsFile(user,args): sendFile(args)return if command == 'List_files':listFiles(args)return ...This code is part of an FTP server and deals with various commands that could be sent by a user. It is intended that a user must successfully login before performing any other action such as retrieving or listing files.
The server correctly avoids sending files to a user that isn't logged in and doesn't own the file. However, the server will incorrectly list the files in any directory without confirming the command came from an authenticated user, and that the user is authorized to see the directory's contents.
def dispatchCommand(command, user, args): ... if command == 'List_files':if authenticated(user) and ownsDirectory(user,args):listFiles(args)return ...Bypass of access/billing restrictions by sending traffic to an unrestricted destination before sending to a restricted destination.
View DetailsAttacker can access portions of a restricted page by canceling out of a dialog.
View DetailsShopping cart does not close a database connection when user restores a previous order, leading to connection exhaustion.
View DetailsChain: product does not properly handle dropped connections, leading to missing NULL terminator (CWE-170) and segmentation fault.
View DetailsChain: Authentication bypass by skipping the first startup step as required by the protocol.
View DetailsChain: File server crashes when sent a "find next" request without an initial "find first."
View DetailsFTP server allows remote attackers to bypass authentication by sending (1) LIST, (2) RETR, (3) STOR, or other commands without performing the required login steps first.
View DetailsFTP server allows remote attackers to list arbitrary directories as root by running the LIST command before logging in.
View DetailsAdditional facts reviewed against primary or authoritative security sources.
Documented detection approaches include Automated Static Analysis; recorded impacts include Alter Execution Logic; observed examples include CVE-2011-0348, CVE-2007-3012, and CVE-2009-5056. Use these source-defined anchors to turn CWE-841 into implementation, review, and verification checks for the affected component.
CWE-841: Improper Enforcement of Behavioral Workflow — MITRE CWEUse NIST SSDF practices to make prevention of CWE-841, Improper Enforcement of Behavioral Workflow, an explicit development outcome. Translate the CWE definition into security requirements and design constraints, choose safer implementation patterns and toolchain checks, and define acceptance evidence before release. Feed every confirmed occurrence back into the requirements, design review, and coding rules so the same root cause is removed across the product rather than patched in one location.
NIST SP 800-218 Secure Software Development Framework — National Institute of Standards and TechnologyUse CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog to test whether a vulnerability mapped to CWE-841, Improper Enforcement of Behavioral Workflow, has evidence of exploitation in the wild. Confirm the CVE-to-CWE root-cause mapping independently before attaching the example, then capture the affected product, required action, and remediation deadline. A missing KEV match is not evidence that the weakness is unexploited, and a KEV entry must not be generalized to every occurrence of this CWE.
Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog — Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security AgencyApply MITRE's full root-cause mapping guidance when using CWE-841, Improper Enforcement of Behavioral Workflow. Separate weakness language from attacker prerequisites and technical impact, check the entry's abstraction and vulnerability-mapping notes, and prefer the most specific Base or Variant supported by the evidence. Record the rejected alternatives and require an independent review before the mapping is used for remediation trends or program metrics.
CVE to CWE Root Cause Mapping Guidance — MITRE CWEApply MITRE's root-cause mapping quick tips to CWE-841, Improper Enforcement of Behavioral Workflow. Confirm the finding describes the causal weakness rather than an impact or attack pattern, compare the abstraction and mapping notes with plausible alternatives, and have a second reviewer challenge the selection. Preserve the evidence and reasoning so recurring defects can be measured against one consistent identifier.
CVE to CWE Root Cause Mapping Quick Tips — MITRE CWECWE-841: Improper Enforcement of Behavioral Workflow is a Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) entry maintained by MITRE. The product supports a session in which more than one behavior must be performed by an actor, but it does not properly ensure that the actor performs the behaviors in the required sequence. By performing actions in an unexpected order, or by omitting steps, an attacker could manipulate the business logic of the product or cause it to enter an invalid state. In some cases, this can also expose resultant weaknesses. For example, a file-sharing protocol might require that an actor perform separate steps to provide a username, then a password, before being able to transfer files. If the file-sharing server accepts a password command followed by a transfer command, without any username being provided, the product might still perform the transfer. Note that this is different than CWE-696, which focuses on when the product performs actions in the wrong sequence; this entry is closely related, but it is focused on ensuring that the actor performs actions in the correct sequence. Workflow-related behaviors include: Steps are performed in the expected order. Required steps are not omitted. Steps are not interrupted. Steps are performed in a timely fashion.
If exploited, CWE-841 (Improper Enforcement of Behavioral Workflow) it can compromise Other, leading to outcomes such as Alter Execution Logic.
CWE-841 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-841, including CVE-2011-0348, CVE-2007-3012, CVE-2009-5056, CVE-2004-2164 and CVE-2003-0777. 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-841 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.