ByteOS Network

CWE-283:Unverified Ownership

Weakness ID:283

Version:v4.17

Weakness Name:Unverified Ownership

Vulnerability Mapping:Allowed

Abstraction:Base

Structure:Simple

Status:Draft

Details Content History Observed CVE Examples Reports

▼Description

The product does not properly verify that a critical resource is owned by the proper entity.

▼Relationships

Relevant to the view"Research Concepts - (1000)"

Nature	Mapping	Type	ID	Name
ChildOf	Allowed-with-Review	C	282	Improper Ownership Management

Nature: ChildOf

Mapping: Allowed-with-Review

Type: Class

ID: 282

Name: Improper Ownership Management

▼Memberships

Nature	Mapping	Type	ID	Name
MemberOf	Prohibited	C	723	OWASP Top Ten 2004 Category A2 - Broken Access Control
MemberOf	Prohibited	C	840	Business Logic Errors
MemberOf	Prohibited	V	884	CWE Cross-section
MemberOf	Prohibited	C	944	SFP Secondary Cluster: Access Management
MemberOf	Prohibited	C	1011	Authorize Actors
MemberOf	Prohibited	C	1396	Comprehensive Categorization: Access Control

Nature: MemberOf

Mapping: Prohibited

Type:Category

ID: 723

Name: OWASP Top Ten 2004 Category A2 - Broken Access Control

Nature: MemberOf

Mapping: Prohibited

Type:Category

ID: 840

Name: Business Logic Errors

Nature: MemberOf

Mapping: Prohibited

Type:View

ID: 884

Name: CWE Cross-section

Nature: MemberOf

Mapping: Prohibited

Type:Category

ID: 944

Name: SFP Secondary Cluster: Access Management

Nature: MemberOf

Mapping: Prohibited

Type:Category

ID: 1011

Name: Authorize Actors

Nature: MemberOf

Mapping: Prohibited

Type:Category

ID: 1396

Name: Comprehensive Categorization: Access Control

▼Tags

Nature	Mapping	Type	ID	Name
MemberOf	Prohibited	BS	BOSS-280	Separation of Privilege Strategy
MemberOf	Prohibited	BS	BOSS-294	Not Language-Specific Weaknesses
MemberOf	Prohibited	BS	BOSS-332	Gain Privileges or Assume Identity (impact)

Nature: MemberOf

Mapping: Prohibited

Type:BOSSView

ID: BOSS-280

Name: Separation of Privilege Strategy

Nature: MemberOf

Mapping: Prohibited

Type:BOSSView

ID: BOSS-294

Name: Not Language-Specific Weaknesses

Nature: MemberOf

Mapping: Prohibited

Type:BOSSView

ID: BOSS-332

Name: Gain Privileges or Assume Identity (impact)

▼Relevant To View

Relevant to the view"Architectural Concepts - (1008)"

Nature	Mapping	Type	ID	Name
MemberOf	Prohibited	C	1011	Authorize Actors

Nature: MemberOf

Mapping: Prohibited

Type: Category

ID: 1011

Name: Authorize Actors

Relevant to the view"Software Development - (699)"

Nature	Mapping	Type	ID	Name
MemberOf	Prohibited	C	840	Business Logic Errors

Nature: MemberOf

Mapping: Prohibited

Type: Category

ID: 840

Name: Business Logic Errors

Relevant to the view"Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters - (888)"

Nature	Mapping	Type	ID	Name
MemberOf	Prohibited	C	944	SFP Secondary Cluster: Access Management

Nature: MemberOf

Mapping: Prohibited

Type: Category

ID: 944

Name: SFP Secondary Cluster: Access Management

▼Common Consequences

Scope	Likelihood	Impact	Note
Access Control	N/A	Gain Privileges or Assume Identity	An attacker could gain unauthorized access to system resources.

Scope: Access Control

Likelihood: N/A

Impact: Gain Privileges or Assume Identity

Note:

An attacker could gain unauthorized access to system resources.

▼Potential Mitigations

Phase:Architecture and Design, Operation

Mitigation ID: MIT-1

Description:

Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.

Phase:Architecture and Design

Mitigation ID: MIT-49

Strategy: Separation of Privilege

Description:

Consider following the principle of separation of privilege. Require multiple conditions to be met before permitting access to a system resource.

▼Modes Of Introduction

Phase: Architecture and Design

Note:

REALIZATION: This weakness is caused during implementation of an architectural security tactic.

▼Applicable Platforms

Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific(Undetermined Prevalence)

▼Demonstrative Examples

Example 1

This function is part of a privileged program that takes input from users with potentially lower privileges.

Language: Python(Bad code)

def killProcess(processID): os.kill(processID, signal.SIGKILL)

This code does not confirm that the process to be killed is owned by the requesting user, thus allowing an attacker to kill arbitrary processes.

This function remedies the problem by checking the owner of the process before killing it:

Language: Python(Good code)

def killProcess(processID): user = getCurrentUser() #Check process owner against requesting user* if getProcessOwner(processID) == user: os.kill(processID, signal.SIGKILL) return else: print("You cannot kill a process you don't own") return

▼Observed Examples

Reference	Description
CVE-2001-0178	Program does not verify the owner of a UNIX socket that is used for sending a password.
CVE-2004-2012	Owner of special device not checked, allowing root.

Reference: CVE-2001-0178

Description:

Program does not verify the owner of a UNIX socket that is used for sending a password.

Reference: CVE-2004-2012

Description:

Owner of special device not checked, allowing root.

▼Vulnerability Mapping Notes

Usage:Allowed

Reason:Acceptable-Use

Rationale:

This CWE entry is at the Base level of abstraction, which is a preferred level of abstraction for mapping to the root causes of vulnerabilities.

Comments:

Carefully read both the name and description to ensure that this mapping is an appropriate fit. Do not try to 'force' a mapping to a lower-level Base/Variant simply to comply with this preferred level of abstraction.

▼Notes

Relationship

This overlaps insufficient comparison, verification errors, permissions, and privileges.

▼Taxonomy Mappings

Taxonomy Name	Entry ID	Fit	Entry Name
PLOVER	N/A	N/A	Unverified Ownership

Taxonomy Name: PLOVER

Entry ID: N/A

Fit: N/A

Entry Name: Unverified Ownership