Threadlinqs IntelligenceStart free

Weakness · ClassCWE-285

CWE-285: Improper Authorization

Likelihood of exploit: HighClass

As of 2026-10-05, CWE-285 (Improper Authorization) underlies 28 CVEs tracked by Threadlinqs, none of them in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, and is cited by 23 tracked threats. MITRE rates its likelihood of exploit as High.

CVEs
28Mapped to CWE-285
CISA KEV
0None listed yet
Critical
2CVSS v3 critical CVEs
Threats
23Tracked campaigns citing it
Likelihood
HighMITRE likelihood of exploit

Last updated:

What is CWE-285?

The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

CWE-285 is a class-level weakness in MITRE’s Common Weakness Enumeration, with a MITRE likelihood of exploit of High. Applicable platforms: Language: Not Language-Specific; Technology: Not Technology-Specific; Technology: Web Server; Technology: Database Server.

Source: MITRE CWE (CWE-285 definition, reproduced verbatim). Counts and linkage below are Threadlinqs data.

Consequences

  • Confidentiality — Read Application Data, Read Files or Directories. An attacker could read sensitive data, either by reading the data directly from a data store that is not properly restricted, or by accessing insufficiently-protected, privileged functionality to read the data.
  • Integrity — Modify Application Data, Modify Files or Directories. An attacker could modify sensitive data, either by writing the data directly to a data store that is not properly restricted, or by accessing insufficiently-protected, privileged functionality to write the data.
  • Access Control — Gain Privileges or Assume Identity, Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands. When access control checks are not applied consistently - or not at all - an attacker could gain privileges and execute unauthorized code or commands by modifying or reading critical data directly, or by accessing insufficiently-protected, privileged functionality.

Source: MITRE CWE, common consequences.

How CWE-285 is exploited in the wild

Threadlinqs maps 28 CVEs to CWE-285, published between 2025-03-21 and 2026-10-03. None of them is in the CISA KEV catalog yet. By CVSS v3 severity the set splits into 2 critical, 6 high, 19 medium, 1 low. The highest EPSS score in the set is 92.1% (CVE-2025-29927), the modelled probability of exploitation in the next 30 days. 23 tracked threats reference CWE-285 directly or through a CVE it covers; the most recent is “Apache Tomcat 11.0.25 Fixes 11 Vulnerabilities Including HTTP/2 DoS, Authorization Bypass, and Auth Fail-Open Flaws — NVD Scores 5 of 11 CRITICAL/HIGH Despite Apache's Low/Moderate Ratings” (2026-08-26). Affected products concentrate in Apache Software Foundation (2), Capgo (2), Microsoft (2), among 17 vendors in total.

Vulnerabilities (CVEs)

All 28 CVEs mapped to CWE-285, CISA KEV first, then by CVSS score.

Affected vendors

Threat activity

23 tracked threats cite CWE-285:

Mitigations

  • Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor.
  • Architecture and Design / Libraries or Frameworks: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
  • Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
  • System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

Source: MITRE CWE, potential mitigations.

Detection methods (MITRE CWE)

  • Automated Static Analysis (effectiveness: Limited): Automated static analysis is useful for detecting commonly-used idioms for authorization. A tool may be able to analyze related configuration files, such as .htaccess in Apache web servers, or detect the usage of commonly-used authorization libraries. Generally, automated static analysis tools have difficulty detecting custom authorization schemes. In addition, the software's design may include some functionality that is accessible to any user and does not require an authorization check; an…
  • Automated Dynamic Analysis: Automated dynamic analysis may find many or all possible interfaces that do not require authorization, but manual analysis is required to determine if the lack of authorization violates business logic
  • Manual Analysis (effectiveness: Moderate): This weakness can be detected using tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session. Specifically, manual static analysis is useful for evaluating the correctness of custom authorization mechanisms.
  • Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode (effectiveness: SOAR Partial): According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Binary / Bytecode disassembler - then use manual analysis for vulnerabilities & anomalies
  • Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation (effectiveness: SOAR Partial): According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Web Application Scanner Web Services Scanner Database Scanners
  • Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation (effectiveness: SOAR Partial): According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Host Application Interface Scanner Fuzz Tester Framework-based Fuzzer Forced Path Execution Monitored Virtual Environment - run potentially malicious code in sandbox / wrapper / virtual machine, see if it does anything suspicious
  • Manual Static Analysis - Source Code (effectiveness: SOAR Partial): According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source Manual Source Code Review (not inspections)
  • Automated Static Analysis - Source Code (effectiveness: SOAR Partial): According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer

Source: MITRE CWE, detection methods. Threadlinqs detection rules for the threats above are Blue tier and higher.