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-CHVC-7QM7-3QGF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-09 18:30 – Updated: 2026-06-09 18:30Protection mechanism failure in Microsoft Office Excel allows an unauthorized attacker to bypass a security feature locally.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-45459"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-09T17:17:20Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Protection mechanism failure in Microsoft Office Excel allows an unauthorized attacker to bypass a security feature locally.",
"id": "GHSA-chvc-7qm7-3qgf",
"modified": "2026-06-09T18:30:49Z",
"published": "2026-06-09T18:30:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-45459"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45459"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-CJ8G-PRCM-MFG5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-10 13:38 – Updated: 2026-06-10 13:38Affected: @hulumi/baseline < 1.4.0 — Fixed in: 1.4.0 — Severity: Medium — CWE-693 (Protection Mechanism Failure)
Summary
AccountFoundation can either create AWS detective services (GuardDuty for threat detection, Security Hub for compliance dashboards) or reuse pre-existing ones via opt-in flags. The reuse paths just imported the existing resources and reported success — they never checked whether the existing services were actually doing their job.
- GuardDuty reuse. If the existing detector was suspended, or set to the slower 6-hour publishing cadence instead of the baseline 15-minute one, or otherwise misconfigured — Hulumi never noticed. The deployment succeeded with a misleadingly-positive
guardDutyDetectorIdoutput as if the baseline were active. - Security Hub reuse. Although the account import was read-only, Hulumi unconditionally created the CIS / NIST
StandardsSubscriptionresources with default delete behaviour. Pulumi then treated those subscriptions as its own — a laterpulumi destroyof the stack would callBatchDisableStandards, unsubscribing the account from CIS / NIST compliance monitoring even on accounts that had those subscriptions before Hulumi ever ran.
Impact
Consumers using AccountFoundation's reuse mode could:
- ship deployments that appeared to enable a detective baseline but actually weren't (case 1), or
- accidentally turn off CIS / NIST compliance monitoring on an existing account just by destroying a Hulumi stack (case 2 — no malicious intent needed; a normal stack teardown was enough).
Patches
Upgrade to @hulumi/baseline@1.4.0.
- GuardDuty reuse now asserts the imported detector is
ENABLEDwithfindingPublishingFrequency: FIFTEEN_MINUTES. Wrong posture fails the deploy at preview time. - Security Hub reuse creates the CIS / NIST
StandardsSubscriptionresources withretainOnDelete: true, so destroying a reused stack no longer unsubscribes the account.
Net-new (non-reuse) deployments are unchanged.
Workarounds
Don't reuse pre-existing detective services with AccountFoundation before upgrading. If reuse is unavoidable, manually verify detector posture out-of-band.
Resources
- PR #178 (Cluster G); regression tests in
packages/baseline/tests/guardduty-reuse-posture.test.tsandpackages/baseline/tests/securityhub-reuse-retain.test.ts.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@hulumi/baseline"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.4.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-48037"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-10T13:38:59Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "**Affected:** `@hulumi/baseline` `\u003c 1.4.0` \u2014 **Fixed in:** `1.4.0` \u2014 **Severity:** Medium \u2014 **CWE-693 (Protection Mechanism Failure)**\n\n#### Summary\n\n`AccountFoundation` can either create AWS detective services (GuardDuty for threat detection, Security Hub for compliance dashboards) or reuse pre-existing ones via opt-in flags. The reuse paths just imported the existing resources and reported success \u2014 they never checked whether the existing services were actually doing their job.\n\n1. **GuardDuty reuse.** If the existing detector was suspended, or set to the slower 6-hour publishing cadence instead of the baseline 15-minute one, or otherwise misconfigured \u2014 Hulumi never noticed. The deployment succeeded with a misleadingly-positive `guardDutyDetectorId` output as if the baseline were active.\n2. **Security Hub reuse.** Although the account import was read-only, Hulumi unconditionally created the CIS / NIST `StandardsSubscription` resources with default delete behaviour. Pulumi then treated those subscriptions as its own \u2014 a later `pulumi destroy` of the stack would call `BatchDisableStandards`, unsubscribing the account from CIS / NIST compliance monitoring even on accounts that had those subscriptions before Hulumi ever ran.\n\n#### Impact\n\nConsumers using `AccountFoundation`\u0027s reuse mode could:\n\n- ship deployments that appeared to enable a detective baseline but actually weren\u0027t (case 1), or\n- accidentally turn off CIS / NIST compliance monitoring on an existing account just by destroying a Hulumi stack (case 2 \u2014 no malicious intent needed; a normal stack teardown was enough).\n\n#### Patches\n\nUpgrade to `@hulumi/baseline@1.4.0`.\n\n- GuardDuty reuse now asserts the imported detector is `ENABLED` with `findingPublishingFrequency: FIFTEEN_MINUTES`. Wrong posture fails the deploy at preview time.\n- Security Hub reuse creates the CIS / NIST `StandardsSubscription` resources with `retainOnDelete: true`, so destroying a reused stack no longer unsubscribes the account.\n\nNet-new (non-reuse) deployments are unchanged.\n\n#### Workarounds\n\nDon\u0027t reuse pre-existing detective services with `AccountFoundation` before upgrading. If reuse is unavoidable, manually verify detector posture out-of-band.\n\n#### Resources\n\n- [PR #178](https://github.com/kerberosmansour/hulumi/pull/178) (Cluster G); regression tests in\n `packages/baseline/tests/guardduty-reuse-posture.test.ts` and\n `packages/baseline/tests/securityhub-reuse-retain.test.ts`.",
"id": "GHSA-cj8g-prcm-mfg5",
"modified": "2026-06-10T13:38:59Z",
"published": "2026-06-10T13:38:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kerberosmansour/hulumi/security/advisories/GHSA-cj8g-prcm-mfg5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kerberosmansour/hulumi/pull/178"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/kerberosmansour/hulumi"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:H/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "@hulumi/baseline: AccountFoundation reuse paths silently downgrade GuardDuty / Security Hub posture"
}
GHSA-CJXQ-X92M-G6GC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-11-09 12:00 – Updated: 2022-11-10 12:01User login brute force protection functionality bypass
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-27516"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-307",
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-11-08T22:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "User login brute force protection functionality bypass",
"id": "GHSA-cjxq-x92m-g6gc",
"modified": "2022-11-10T12:01:17Z",
"published": "2022-11-09T12:00:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-27516"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.citrix.com/article/CTX463706/citrix-gateway-and-citrix-adc-security-bulletin-for-cve202227510-cve202227513-and-cve202227516"
}
],
"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:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-CMC9-H7G2-JQFF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-12 15:30 – Updated: 2026-03-12 15:30A vulnerability allowing an authenticated domain user to bypass restrictions and manipulate arbitrary files on a Backup Repository.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-21668"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-12T15:16:13Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability allowing an authenticated domain user to bypass restrictions and manipulate arbitrary files on a Backup Repository.",
"id": "GHSA-cmc9-h7g2-jqff",
"modified": "2026-03-12T15:30:26Z",
"published": "2026-03-12T15:30:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-21668"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.veeam.com/kb4830"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-CMFC-3Q8R-88W2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-09 18:30 – Updated: 2026-06-09 18:30Protection mechanism failure in Windows BitLocker allows an unauthorized attacker to bypass a security feature with a physical attack.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-45655"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-09T17:17:32Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Protection mechanism failure in Windows BitLocker allows an unauthorized attacker to bypass a security feature with a physical attack.",
"id": "GHSA-cmfc-3q8r-88w2",
"modified": "2026-06-09T18:30:53Z",
"published": "2026-06-09T18:30:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-45655"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45655"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-CMQQ-5RP5-X675
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-14 18:32 – Updated: 2025-01-14 18:32Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-21211"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-14T18:15:32Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability",
"id": "GHSA-cmqq-5rp5-x675",
"modified": "2025-01-14T18:32:02Z",
"published": "2025-01-14T18:32:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-21211"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2025-21211"
}
],
"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:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-CPGJ-F7G3-2PP2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-16 19:02 – Updated: 2026-06-16 19:02Summary
When fetch() was called, Deno checked the destination hostname against
--deny-net rules but did not re-check the IP addresses that hostname
resolved to. An attacker-controlled script could use a specially crafted domain
name that passes the hostname check yet resolves to a denied IP, bypassing the
network restriction entirely.
Impact
Code running under --deny-net could reach hosts that the user intended to
block. In practice this means network isolation rules — for example, blocking
access to localhost or internal services — could be silently circumvented by
a malicious or compromised dependency.
A companion advisory covers the same class of issue in the WebSocket API.
Who is affected
Users who:
- run untrusted or third-party code with
deno run, and - rely on
--deny-netto restrict which hosts that code can reach.
If you do not use --deny-net, or if you only run fully trusted code, you are
not affected.
Workaround
No workaround is available short of upgrading. If upgrading immediately is not
possible, avoid granting --allow-net to untrusted code that also has
--deny-net restrictions you depend on for security.
Fix
The fetch() DNS resolver now performs a post-resolution check on every IP
address before passing it to the HTTP connector, consistent with how
Deno.connect already behaved.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.8.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "deno"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.8.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-49859"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693",
"CWE-918"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-16T19:02:55Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nWhen `fetch()` was called, Deno checked the destination hostname against\n`--deny-net` rules but did not re-check the IP addresses that hostname\nresolved to. An attacker-controlled script could use a specially crafted domain\nname that passes the hostname check yet resolves to a denied IP, bypassing the\nnetwork restriction entirely.\n\n## Impact\n\nCode running under `--deny-net` could reach hosts that the user intended to\nblock. In practice this means network isolation rules \u2014 for example, blocking\naccess to `localhost` or internal services \u2014 could be silently circumvented by\na malicious or compromised dependency.\n\nA companion advisory covers the same class of issue in the WebSocket API.\n\n## Who is affected\n\nUsers who:\n\n- run untrusted or third-party code with `deno run`, and\n- rely on `--deny-net` to restrict which hosts that code can reach.\n\nIf you do not use `--deny-net`, or if you only run fully trusted code, you are\nnot affected.\n\n## Workaround\n\nNo workaround is available short of upgrading. If upgrading immediately is not\npossible, avoid granting `--allow-net` to untrusted code that also has\n`--deny-net` restrictions you depend on for security.\n\n## Fix\n\nThe `fetch()` DNS resolver now performs a post-resolution check on every IP\naddress before passing it to the HTTP connector, consistent with how\n`Deno.connect` already behaved.",
"id": "GHSA-cpgj-f7g3-2pp2",
"modified": "2026-06-16T19:02:55Z",
"published": "2026-06-16T19:02:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/denoland/deno/security/advisories/GHSA-cpgj-f7g3-2pp2"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/denoland/deno"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Deno: `fetch()` API sandbox bypass via missing DNS resolution check"
}
GHSA-CQ55-H3QW-J4HC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-26 21:31 – Updated: 2024-12-10 18:31A logic issue was addressed with improved checks. This issue is fixed in iTunes 12.12.4 for Windows. A local attacker may be able to elevate their privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-48611"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-26T20:15:07Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A logic issue was addressed with improved checks. This issue is fixed in iTunes 12.12.4 for Windows. A local attacker may be able to elevate their privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-cq55-h3qw-j4hc",
"modified": "2024-12-10T18:31:06Z",
"published": "2024-04-26T21:31:11Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-48611"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/103001"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.claris.com/s/answerview?anum=000041674\u0026language=en_US"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-CRW2-CM3V-9P9W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-11 21:31 – Updated: 2026-06-11 21:31This issue was addressed with improved checks to prevent unauthorized actions. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.4. An app may be able to break out of its sandbox.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-24284"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-11T19:16:27Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "This issue was addressed with improved checks to prevent unauthorized actions. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.4. An app may be able to break out of its sandbox.",
"id": "GHSA-crw2-cm3v-9p9w",
"modified": "2026-06-11T21:31:54Z",
"published": "2026-06-11T21:31:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-24284"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122373"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-CV94-MX5J-2974
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-07-08 18:31 – Updated: 2025-07-08 18:31Protection mechanism failure in Windows BitLocker allows an unauthorized attacker to bypass a security feature with a physical attack.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-48800"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-07-08T17:15:42Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Protection mechanism failure in Windows BitLocker allows an unauthorized attacker to bypass a security feature with a physical attack.",
"id": "GHSA-cv94-mx5j-2974",
"modified": "2025-07-08T18:31:45Z",
"published": "2025-07-08T18:31:45Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-48800"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2025-48800"
}
],
"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: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.