Headline
CVE-2023-33747: CWE-269: Improper Privilege Management (4.11)
CloudPanel v2.2.2 allows attackers to execute a path traversal.
Weakness ID: 269
Abstraction: Class
Structure: Simple
Description
The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
Relationships
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition, relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
Relevant to the view “Research Concepts” (CWE-1000)
Nature
Type
ID
Name
ChildOf
Pillar - a weakness that is the most abstract type of weakness and represents a theme for all class/base/variant weaknesses related to it. A Pillar is different from a Category as a Pillar is still technically a type of weakness that describes a mistake, while a Category represents a common characteristic used to group related things.
284
Improper Access Control
ParentOf
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
250
Execution with Unnecessary Privileges
ParentOf
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
266
Incorrect Privilege Assignment
ParentOf
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
267
Privilege Defined With Unsafe Actions
ParentOf
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
268
Privilege Chaining
ParentOf
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
270
Privilege Context Switching Error
ParentOf
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
271
Privilege Dropping / Lowering Errors
ParentOf
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
274
Improper Handling of Insufficient Privileges
ParentOf
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
648
Incorrect Use of Privileged APIs
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition, relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
Relevant to the view “Architectural Concepts” (CWE-1008)
Nature
Type
ID
Name
MemberOf
Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.
1011
Authorize Actors
Modes Of Introduction
The different Modes of Introduction provide information about how and when this weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which introduction may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the given phase.
Phase
Note
Architecture and Design
Implementation
REALIZATION: This weakness is caused during implementation of an architectural security tactic.
Operation
Applicable Platforms
This listing shows possible areas for which the given weakness could appear. These may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms, Technologies, or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given weakness appears for that instance.
Languages
Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Common Consequences
This table specifies different individual consequences associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to achieve a different impact.
Scope
Impact
Likelihood
Access Control
Technical Impact: Gain Privileges or Assume Identity
Likelihood Of Exploit
Demonstrative Examples
Example 1
This code temporarily raises the program’s privileges to allow creation of a new user folder.
(bad code)
Example Language: Python
def makeNewUserDir(username):
if invalidUsername(username):
#avoid CWE-22 and CWE-78
print(‘Usernames cannot contain invalid characters’)
return False
try:
raisePrivileges()
os.mkdir(‘/home/’ + username)
lowerPrivileges()
except OSError:
print(‘Unable to create new user directory for user:’ + username)
return False
return True
While the program only raises its privilege level to create the folder and immediately lowers it again, if the call to os.mkdir() throws an exception, the call to lowerPrivileges() will not occur. As a result, the program is indefinitely operating in a raised privilege state, possibly allowing further exploitation to occur.
Example 2
The following example demonstrates the weakness.
(bad code)
Example Language: C
seteuid(0);
/* do some stuff */
seteuid(getuid());
Example 3
The following example demonstrates the weakness.
(bad code)
Example Language: Java
AccessController.doPrivileged(new PrivilegedAction() {
public Object run() {
// privileged code goes here, for example:
System.loadLibrary(“awt”);
return null;
// nothing to return
}
Example 4
This code intends to allow only Administrators to print debug information about a system.
(bad code)
Example Language: Java
public enum Roles {
ADMIN,USER,GUEST
}
public void printDebugInfo(User requestingUser){
if(isAuthenticated(requestingUser)){
switch(requestingUser.role){
case GUEST:
System.out.println(“You are not authorized to perform this command”);
break;
default:
System.out.println(currentDebugState());
break;
}
}
else{
System.out.println(“You must be logged in to perform this command”);
}
}
While the intention was to only allow Administrators to print the debug information, the code as written only excludes those with the role of "GUEST". Someone with the role of “ADMIN” or “USER” will be allowed access, which goes against the original intent. An attacker may be able to use this debug information to craft an attack on the system.
Example 5
This code allows someone with the role of “ADMIN” or “OPERATOR” to reset a user’s password. The role of “OPERATOR” is intended to have less privileges than an "ADMIN", but still be able to help users with small issues such as forgotten passwords.
(bad code)
Example Language: Java
public enum Roles {
ADMIN,OPERATOR,USER,GUEST
}
public void resetPassword(User requestingUser, User user, String password ){
if(isAuthenticated(requestingUser)){
switch(requestingUser.role){
case GUEST:
System.out.println(“You are not authorized to perform this command”);
break;
case USER:
System.out.println(“You are not authorized to perform this command”);
break;
default:
setPassword(user,password);
break;
}
}
else{
System.out.println(“You must be logged in to perform this command”);
}
}
This code does not check the role of the user whose password is being reset. It is possible for an Operator to gain Admin privileges by resetting the password of an Admin account and taking control of that account.
Observed Examples
Reference
Description
CVE-2001-1555
Terminal privileges are not reset when a user logs out.
CVE-2001-1514
Does not properly pass security context to child processes in certain cases, allows privilege escalation.
CVE-2001-0128
Does not properly compute roles.
CVE-1999-1193
untrusted user placed in unix “wheel” group
CVE-2005-2741
Product allows users to grant themselves certain rights that can be used to escalate privileges.
CVE-2005-2496
Product uses group ID of a user instead of the group, causing it to run with different privileges. This is resultant from some other unknown issue.
CVE-2004-0274
Product mistakenly assigns a particular status to an entity, leading to increased privileges.
CVE-2007-4217
FTP client program on a certain OS runs with setuid privileges and has a buffer overflow. Most clients do not need extra privileges, so an overflow is not a vulnerability for those clients.
CVE-2007-5159
OS incorrectly installs a program with setuid privileges, allowing users to gain privileges.
CVE-2008-4638
Composite: application running with high privileges (CWE-250) allows user to specify a restricted file to process, which generates a parsing error that leaks the contents of the file (CWE-209).
CVE-2007-3931
Installation script installs some programs as setuid when they shouldn’t be.
CVE-2002-1981
Roles have access to dangerous procedures (Accessible entities).
CVE-2002-1671
Untrusted object/method gets access to clipboard (Accessible entities).
CVE-2000-0315
Traceroute program allows unprivileged users to modify source address of packet (Accessible entities).
CVE-2000-0506
User with capability can prevent setuid program from dropping privileges (Unsafe privileged actions).
Potential Mitigations
Phases: Architecture and Design; Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Phase: Architecture and Design
Strategy: Separation of Privilege
Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
Phase: Architecture and Design
Strategy: Separation of Privilege
Consider following the principle of separation of privilege. Require multiple conditions to be met before permitting access to a system resource.
Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality
Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
Detection Methods
Automated Static Analysis
Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect “sources” (origins of input) with “sinks” (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.)
Effectiveness: High
Memberships
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Notes
Mapping
Use for Mapping: Discouraged (this CWE ID should not be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities).
Rationale: CWE-269 is commonly misused. It can be conflated with “privilege escalation,” which is a technical impact that is listed in many low-information vulnerability reports [REF-1287]. It is not useful for trend analysis.
Comments: if an error or mistake allows privilege escalation, then use the CWE ID for that mistake. Avoid using CWE-269 when only phrases such as “privilege escalation” or “gain privileges” are available, as these indicate technical impact of the vulnerability - not the root cause weakness. If the root cause seems to be directly related to privileges, then examine the children of CWE-269 for additional hints, such as Execution with Unnecessary Privileges (CWE-250) or Incorrect Privilege Assignment (CWE-266).
Maintenance
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-693).
Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name
Node ID
Fit
Mapped Node Name
PLOVER
Privilege Management Error
References
[REF-44] Michael Howard, David LeBlanc and John Viega. "24 Deadly Sins of Software Security". “Sin 16: Executing Code With Too Much Privilege.” Page 243. McGraw-Hill. 2010.
[REF-62] Mark Dowd, John McDonald and Justin Schuh. "The Art of Software Security Assessment". Chapter 9, "Dropping Privileges Permanently", Page 479. 1st Edition. Addison Wesley. 2006.
Content History
Submissions
Submission Date
Submitter
Organization
2006-07-19
PLOVER
Modifications
Modification Date
Modifier
Organization
2008-07-01
Eric Dalci
Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
2008-09-08
CWE Team
Moved this entry higher up in the Research view.
2008-09-08
CWE Content Team
MITRE
updated Description, Maintenance_Notes, Name, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings, Weakness_Ordinalities
2009-05-27
CWE Content Team
MITRE
updated Name
2009-12-28
CWE Content Team
MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2010-06-21
CWE Content Team
MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2011-03-29
CWE Content Team
MITRE
updated Description, Relationships
2011-06-01
CWE Content Team
MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2012-05-11
CWE Content Team
MITRE
updated References, Relationships
2012-10-30
CWE Content Team
MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2013-02-21
CWE Content Team
MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2017-11-08
CWE Content Team
MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Causal_Nature, Modes_of_Introduction, Relationships, Type
2019-06-20
CWE Content Team
MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
2019-09-19
CWE Content Team
MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Maintenance_Notes, Observed_Examples, Relationships
2020-02-24
CWE Content Team
MITRE
updated Observed_Examples, Relationships
2020-08-20
CWE Content Team
MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-03-15
CWE Content Team
MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2021-10-28
CWE Content Team
MITRE
updated Relationships
2022-04-28
CWE Content Team
MITRE
updated Relationships
2022-10-13
CWE Content Team
MITRE
updated References
2023-01-31
CWE Content Team
MITRE
updated Description
2023-04-27
CWE Content Team
MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, Relationships
Previous Entry Names
Change Date
Previous Entry Name
2008-09-09
Privilege Management Error
2009-05-27
Insecure Privilege Management
Related news
CloudPanel 2 before 2.3.1 has insecure file-manager cookie authentication.
CloudPanel versions 2.0.0 through 2.2.2 suffer from a privilege escalation vulnerability when a traversal is leveraged against clpctlWrapper for which all normal users have sudo access.
Wondershare Dr.Fone v12.9.6 was discovered to contain weak permissions for the service WsDrvInst. This vulnerability allows attackers to escalate privileges via modifying or overwriting the executable.
Wondershare Dr.Fone v12.9.6 was discovered to contain weak permissions for the service WsDrvInst. This vulnerability allows attackers to escalate privileges via modifying or overwriting the executable.
Wondershare Dr.Fone v12.9.6 was discovered to contain weak permissions for the service WsDrvInst. This vulnerability allows attackers to escalate privileges via modifying or overwriting the executable.
Wondershare Dr.Fone v12.9.6 was discovered to contain weak permissions for the service WsDrvInst. This vulnerability allows attackers to escalate privileges via modifying or overwriting the executable.