CWE-425 Base Incomplete

Direct Request ('Forced Browsing')

This vulnerability occurs when a web application fails to verify user permissions for every protected page, file, or API endpoint, allowing attackers to access them directly.

Definition

What is CWE-425?

This vulnerability occurs when a web application fails to verify user permissions for every protected page, file, or API endpoint, allowing attackers to access them directly.
Direct Request vulnerabilities happen because developers often assume users will only navigate through the intended application flow, like clicking buttons in a set sequence. They place authorization checks only at those expected entry points, forgetting that a user can simply type or forge a request to any URL or endpoint the server knows. This creates an insecure direct object reference (IDOR) risk, where attackers can 'force browse' by guessing or discovering hidden paths to administrative panels, configuration files, user data, or backend scripts. To prevent this, every single restricted resource must independently validate that the current session has explicit permission to access it, regardless of how the request was made.
Real-world impact

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-425

  • Access-control setting in web-based document collaboration tool is not properly implemented by the code, which prevents listing hidden directories but does not prevent direct requests to files in those directories.

  • Python-based HTTP library did not scope cookies to a particular domain such that "supercookies" could be sent to any domain on redirect.

  • Bypass authentication via direct request.

  • Infinite loop or infoleak triggered by direct requests.

  • Bypass auth/auth via direct request.

  • Direct request leads to infoleak by error.

  • Direct request leads to infoleak by error.

  • Direct request leads to infoleak by error.

How attackers exploit it

Step-by-step attacker path

  1. 1

    Identify a code path that handles untrusted input without validation.

  2. 2

    Craft a payload that exercises the unsafe behavior — injection, traversal, overflow, or logic abuse.

  3. 3

    Deliver the payload through a normal request and observe the application's reaction.

  4. 4

    Iterate until the response leaks data, executes attacker code, or escalates privileges.

Vulnerable code example

Vulnerable JSP

If forced browsing is possible, an attacker may be able to directly access a sensitive page by entering a URL similar to the following.

Vulnerable JSP
http://somesite.com/someapplication/admin.jsp
Attacker payload

If forced browsing is possible, an attacker may be able to directly access a sensitive page by entering a URL similar to the following.

Attacker payload JSP
http://somesite.com/someapplication/admin.jsp
Secure code example

Secure pseudo

Secure pseudo
// Validate, sanitize, or use a safe API before reaching the sink.
function handleRequest(input) {
  const safe = validateAndEscape(input);
  return executeWithGuards(safe);
}
What changed: the unsafe sink is replaced (or the input is validated/escaped) so the same payload no longer triggers the weakness.
Prevention checklist

How to prevent CWE-425

  • Architecture and Design / Operation Apply appropriate access control authorizations for each access to all restricted URLs, scripts or files.
  • Architecture and Design Consider using MVC based frameworks such as Struts.
Detection signals

How to detect CWE-425

SAST High

Run static analysis (SAST) on the codebase looking for the unsafe pattern in the data flow.

DAST Moderate

Run dynamic application security testing against the live endpoint.

Runtime Moderate

Watch runtime logs for unusual exception traces, malformed input, or authorization bypass attempts.

Code review Moderate

Code review: flag any new code that handles input from this surface without using the validated framework helpers.

CWE-425

Don't catalog this weakness. Prove it's reachable.

Plexicus turns CWE catalogs into evidence: every CWE-pattern is matched against your real code graph, reach is proven on a sandbox clone, and verified findings ship as reviewed PRs.

Frequently asked questions

Frequently asked questions

What is CWE-425?

This vulnerability occurs when a web application fails to verify user permissions for every protected page, file, or API endpoint, allowing attackers to access them directly.

How serious is CWE-425?

MITRE has not published a likelihood-of-exploit rating for this weakness. Treat it as medium-impact until your threat model proves otherwise.

What languages or platforms are affected by CWE-425?

MITRE lists the following affected platforms: Web Based.

How can I prevent CWE-425?

Apply appropriate access control authorizations for each access to all restricted URLs, scripts or files. Consider using MVC based frameworks such as Struts.

How does Plexicus detect and fix CWE-425?

Plexicus's SAST engine matches the data-flow signature for CWE-425 on every commit. When a match is found, our Codex Remedium agent opens a fix PR with the corrected code, tests, and a one-line summary for the reviewer.

Where can I learn more about CWE-425?

MITRE publishes the canonical definition at https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/425.html. You can also reference OWASP and NIST documentation for adjacent guidance.

Ready to validate what matters?

Ready to validate what matters?

Plexicus is Proof-Driven AppSec: validated findings, contextual understanding, and reviewed remediation — anchored in evidence, scoped with you.

Qualification

Check whether AI Swarm Pentest fits your environment.

Share the minimum context. We will review the scope and tell you the next commercial step.

Before submitting — verify you fit

Teams with fewer than 50 developers: start a 14-day Trial instead of booking a demo. Start a 14-day Trial →

0 / 280

No commitment. If you don't fit, we'll tell you.

SAMPLE HANDOVER · ILLUSTRATIVE

Sample evidence handover

A trimmed view of what your team receives at the end of an AI Swarm Pentest engagement. Real engagements include full technical evidence, executive narrative, and a remediation plan.

VALIDATED FINDING Evidence attached

Server-Side Request Forgery in webhooks/receiver

demo-project/sample-app · src/webhooks/receiver.py:42

SeverityHigh CVSS 3.18.6 Priority79 Confirmedvia replay

Untrusted caller-supplied URLs reach an internal egress without an allowlist. Replayed in a sandbox against a fresh authorised target — the same control was validated to fail twice.

REVIEWER-READY REMEDIATION Merge-ready PR

Validate the target URL against an allowlist of permitted hostnames. Reject private/internal IP ranges. Enforce HTTPS only.

plexicus/remediation/webhooks-ssrf 3 changed · 0 new files
42resp = requests.get(target_url)
42+if not is_allowed_host(target_url):
43+  raise WebhookRejected(target_url)
44+resp = requests.get(target_url, timeout=5)
Every engagement hands over:
  • Executive briefing
  • Validated findings list
  • Merge-ready PRs
  • Compliance mapping (NIS2 · DORA · CRA)