CWE-1220: Insufficient Granularity of Access Control
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
Description
Extended Description
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.
Potential Mitigations
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)
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 "Software Development" (CWE-699)
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 "Hardware Design" (CWE-1194)
Modes
Of IntroductionThe 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.
Applicable PlatformsThis 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) Operating Systems Class: Not OS-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Architectures Class: Not Architecture-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Technologies Class: Not Technology-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Demonstrative ExamplesExample 1
Consider a system with a register for storing AES key for encryption or decryption. The key is 128 bits, implemented as a set of four 32-bit registers. The key registers are assets and registers, AES_KEY_READ_POLICY and AES_KEY_WRITE_POLICY, and are defined to provide necessary access controls. The read-policy register defines which agents can read the AES-key registers, and write-policy register defines which agents can program or write to those registers. Each register is a 32-bit register, and it can support access control for a maximum of 32 agents. The number of the bit when set (i.e., "1") allows respective action from an agent whose identity matches the number of the bit and, if "0" (i.e., Clear), disallows the respective action to that corresponding agent. (bad code)
Example Language: Other
In the above example, there is only one policy register that controls access to both read and write accesses to the AES-key registers, and thus the design is not granular enough to separate read and writes access for different agents. Here, agent with identities "1" and "2" can both read and write. A good design should be granular enough to provide separate access controls to separate actions. Access control for reads should be separate from writes. Below is an example of such implementation where two policy registers are defined for each of these actions. The policy is defined such that: the AES-key registers can only be read or used by a crypto agent with identity "1" when bit #1 is set. The AES-key registers can only be programmed by a trusted firmware with identity "2" when bit #2 is set. (good code)
Example 2
Within the AXI node interface wrapper module in the RISC-V AXI module of the HACK@DAC'19 CVA6 SoC [REF-1346], an access control mechanism is employed to regulate the access of different privileged users to peripherals. The AXI ensures that only users with appropriate privileges can access specific peripherals. For instance, a ROM module is accessible exclusively with Machine privilege, and AXI enforces that users attempting to read data from the ROM must possess machine privilege; otherwise, access to the ROM is denied. The access control information and configurations are stored in a ROM. (bad code)
Example Language: Verilog
...
for (i=0; i<NB_SUBORDINATE; i++)
...begin for (j=0; j<NB_MANAGER; j++)
endbegin assign connectivity_map_o[i][j] = access_ctrl_i[i][j][priv_lvl_i] || ((j==6) && access_ctrl_i[i][7][priv_lvl_i]);
endHowever, in the example code above, while assigning distinct privileges to AXI manager and subordinates, both the Platform-Level Interrupt Controller Specification (PLIC) and the Core-local Interrupt Controller (CLINT) (which are peripheral numbers 6 and 7 respectively) utilize the same access control configuration. This common configuration diminishes the granularity of the AXI access control mechanism. In certain situations, it might be necessary to grant higher privileges for accessing the PLIC than those required for accessing the CLINT. Unfortunately, this differentiation is overlooked, allowing an attacker to access the PLIC with lower privileges than intended. As a consequence, unprivileged code can read and write to the PLIC even when it was not intended to do so. In the worst-case scenario, the attacker could manipulate interrupt priorities, potentially modifying the system's behavior or availability. To address the aforementioned vulnerability, developers must enhance the AXI access control granularity by implementing distinct access control entries for the Platform-Level Interrupt Controller (PLIC) and the Core-local Interrupt Controller (CLINT). By doing so, different privilege levels can be defined for accessing PLIC and CLINT, effectively thwarting the potential attacks previously highlighted. This approach ensures a more robust and secure system, safeguarding against unauthorized access and manipulation of interrupt priorities. [REF-1347] (good code)
Example Language: Verilog
...
for (i=0; i<NB_SUBORDINATE; i++)
...begin for (j=0; j<NB_MANAGER; j++)
endbegin assign connectivity_map_o[i][j] = access_ctrl_i[i][j][priv_lvl_i];
endExample 3 Consider the following SoC design. The sram in HRoT has an address range that is readable and writable by unprivileged software and it has an area that is only readable by unprivileged software. The tbus interconnect enforces access control for subordinates on the bus but uses only one bit to control both read and write access. Address 0xA0000000 - 0xA000FFFF is readable and writable by the untrusted cores core{0-N} and address 0xA0010000 - 0xA001FFFF is only readable by the untrusted cores core{0-N}.
The security policy access control is not granular enough, as it uses one bit to enable both read and write access. This gives write access to an area that should only be readable by unprivileged agents. Access control logic should differentiate between read and write access and to have sufficient address granularity. Observed
Examples 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.
Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Related Attack Patterns References Content
History
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
