Vulnerability Mapping:
ALLOWEDThis CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities Abstraction: BaseBase - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
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.
×
Edit Custom Filter
Description
When a security-critical event occurs, the product either does not record the event or omits important details about the event when logging it.
Extended Description
When security-critical events are not logged properly, such as a failed login attempt, this can make malicious behavior more difficult to detect and may hinder forensic analysis after an attack succeeds.
As organizations adopt cloud storage resources, these technologies often require configuration changes to enable detailed logging information, since detailed logging can incur additional costs. This could lead to telemetry gaps in critical audit logs. For example, in Azure, the default value for logging is disabled.
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)
Nature
Type
ID
Name
ChildOf
Pillar - a weakness that is the most abstract type of weakness and represents a theme for all class/base/variant weaknesses related to it. A Pillar is different from a Category as a Pillar is still technically a type of weakness that describes a mistake, while a Category represents a common characteristic used to group related things.
Base - a weakness
that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
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)
Nature
Type
ID
Name
MemberOf
Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.
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 "Architectural Concepts" (CWE-1008)
Nature
Type
ID
Name
MemberOf
Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.
The 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.
Phase
Note
Operation
COMMISSION: This weakness refers to an incorrect design related to an architectural security tactic.
Applicable Platforms
This 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)
Technologies
Class: Cloud Computing (Undetermined Prevalence)
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.
Scope
Impact
Likelihood
Non-Repudiation
Technical Impact: Hide Activities
If security critical information is not recorded, there will be no trail for forensic analysis and discovering the cause of problems or the source of attacks may become more difficult or impossible.
Likelihood Of Exploit
Medium
Demonstrative Examples
Example 1
The example below shows a configuration for the service security audit feature in the Windows Communication Foundation (WCF).
The previous configuration file has effectively disabled the recording of security-critical events, which would force the administrator to look to other sources during debug or recovery efforts.
Logging failed authentication attempts can warn administrators of potential brute force attacks. Similarly, logging successful authentication events can provide a useful audit trail when a legitimate account is compromised. The following configuration shows appropriate settings, assuming that the site does not have excessive traffic, which could fill the logs if there are a large number of success or failure events (CWE-779).
In the following Java example the code attempts to authenticate the user. If the login fails a retry is made. Proper restrictions on the number of login attempts are of course part of the retry functionality. Unfortunately, the failed login is not recorded and there would be no record of an adversary attempting to brute force the program.
(bad code)
Example Language: Java
if LoginUser(){
// Login successful
RunProgram();
} else {
// Login unsuccessful
LoginRetry();
}
It is recommended to log the failed login action. Note that unneutralized usernames should not be part of the log message, and passwords should never be part of the log message.
(good code)
Example Language: Java
if LoginUser(){
// Login successful
log.warn("Login by user successful.");
RunProgram();
} else {
// Login unsuccessful
log.warn("Login attempt by user failed, trying again.");
LoginRetry();
}
Example 3
Consider this command for updating Azure's Storage Logging for Blob service, adapted from [REF-1307]:
(bad code)
Example Language: Shell
az storage logging update --account-name --account-key --services b --log d --retention 90
The "--log d" portion of the command says to log deletes. However, the argument does not include the logging of writes and reads. Adding the "rw" arguments to the -log parameter will fix the issue:
(good code)
Example Language: Shell
az storage logging update --account-name --account-key --services b --log rwd --retention 90
To enable Azure's storage analytic logs programmatically using PowerShell:
admin interface does not log failed authentication attempts, making it easier for attackers to perform brute force password guessing without being detected
web server does not log requests for a non-standard request type
Potential Mitigations
Phase: Architecture and Design
Use a centralized logging mechanism that supports multiple levels of detail.
Phase: Implementation
Ensure that all security-related successes and failures can be logged. When storing data in the cloud (e.g., AWS S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to enable and capture detailed logging information.
Phase: Operation
Be sure to set the level of logging appropriately in a production environment. Sufficient data should be logged to enable system administrators to detect attacks, diagnose errors, and recover from attacks. At the same time, logging too much data (CWE-779) can cause the same problems, including unexpected costs when using a cloud environment.
Phase: Operation
To enable storage logging using Azure's Portal, navigate to the name of the Storage Account, locate Monitoring (CLASSIC) section, and select Diagnostic settings (classic). For each of the various properties (blob, file, table, queue), ensure the status is properly set for the desired logging data. If using PowerShell, the Set-AzStorageServiceLoggingProperty command could be called using appropriate -ServiceType, -LoggingOperations, and -RetentionDays arguments.
Detection Methods
Automated Static Analysis
Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect "sources" (origins of input) with "sinks" (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.)
Effectiveness: High
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.
Nature
Type
ID
Name
MemberOf
Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.
(this CWE ID could be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
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.
References
[REF-62] Mark Dowd, John McDonald
and Justin Schuh. "The Art of Software Security Assessment". Chapter 2, "Accountability", Page 40. 1st Edition. Addison Wesley. 2006.
[REF-1307] Center for Internet Security. "CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark version 1.5.0". Sections 3.5, 3.13, and 3.14. 2022-08-16.
<https://www.cisecurity.org/benchmark/azure>. URL validated: 2023-01-19.
Description
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 "Architectural Concepts" (CWE-1008)
