CWE-837: Improper Enforcement of a Single, Unique Action
Weakness ID: 837
Abstraction: Base Structure: Simple
Status: Incomplete
Presentation Filter:
Description
The software requires that an actor should only be able to perform an action once, or to have only one unique action, but the software does not enforce or improperly enforces this restriction.
Extended Description
In various applications, a user is only expected to perform a certain action once, such as voting, requesting a refund, or making a purchase. When this restriction is not enforced, sometimes this can have security implications. For example, in a voting application, an attacker could attempt to "stuff the ballot box" by voting multiple times. If these votes are counted separately, then the attacker could directly affect who wins the vote. This could have significant business impact depending on the purpose of the software.
Relationships
The table(s) below 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
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.
The listings below show 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.
The table below 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
Other
Technical Impact:
An attacker might be able to gain advantage over other users by performing the action multiple times, or affect the correctness of the software.
Protocol implementation allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (call-number exhaustion) by initiating many message exchanges.
Content History
Submissions
Submission Date
Submitter
Organization
2011-03-24
CWE Content Team
MITRE
Modifications
Modification Date
Modifier
Organization
2012-05-11
CWE Content Team
MITRE
updated Observed_Examples
2020-02-24
CWE Content Team
MITRE
updated Relationships
More information is available — Please select a different filter.
Page Last Updated:
February 20, 2020
Use of the Common Weakness Enumeration and the associated references from this website are subject to the
Terms of Use. For more information, please email cwe@mitre.org.
Description
Content History
