Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key

Incomplete Base
Structure: Simple
Description

This vulnerability occurs when an application's authorization system fails to verify that a user is allowed to access specific data before retrieving it, allowing an attacker to access another user's information by manipulating an identifier they control.

Extended Description

This flaw typically appears in features that fetch user-specific data, like account pages or search results. The application uses a key—such as a database ID, account number, or session token—to locate the correct record. However, if this key is taken directly from a user-controllable source like a URL parameter, form field, or cookie without verifying the requesting user's permissions, an attacker can simply change the key value to access data belonging to someone else. Attackers often exploit this by tampering with sequential, predictable, or easily-guessed identifiers. For instance, using a simple integer like `user_id=1001` and changing it to `1002` to access another account. The core failure is that the system performs a lookup based on the provided key but skips the critical authorization check to confirm the authenticated user actually owns or has the right to view that specific record.

Common Consequences 3
Scope: Access Control

Impact: Bypass Protection Mechanism

Access control checks for specific user data or functionality can be bypassed.

Scope: Access Control

Impact: Gain Privileges or Assume Identity

Horizontal escalation of privilege is possible (one user can view/modify information of another user).

Scope: Access Control

Impact: Gain Privileges or Assume Identity

Vertical escalation of privilege is possible if the user-controlled key is actually a flag that indicates administrator status, allowing the attacker to gain administrative access.

Detection Methods 1
Automated Static AnalysisHigh
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.)
Potential Mitigations 3
Phase: Architecture and Design
For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.
Phase: Architecture and DesignImplementation
Make sure that the key that is used in the lookup of a specific user's record is not controllable externally by the user or that any tampering can be detected.
Phase: Architecture and Design
Use encryption in order to make it more difficult to guess other legitimate values of the key or associate a digital signature with the key so that the server can verify that there has been no tampering.
Demonstrative Examples 1

ID : DX-195

The following code uses a parameterized statement, which escapes metacharacters and prevents SQL injection vulnerabilities, to construct and execute a SQL query that searches for an invoice matching the specified identifier [1]. The identifier is selected from a list of all invoices associated with the current authenticated user.

Code Example:

Bad
C#
c#
The problem is that the developer has not considered all of the possible values of id. Although the interface generates a list of invoice identifiers that belong to the current user, an attacker can bypass this interface to request any desired invoice. Because the code in this example does not check to ensure that the user has permission to access the requested invoice, it will display any invoice, even if it does not belong to the current user.
Observed Examples 1
CVE-2021-36539An educational application does not appropriately restrict file IDs to a particular user. The attacker can brute-force guess IDs, indicating IDOR.
Likelihood of Exploit

High

Applicable Platforms
Languages:
Not Language-Specific : Undetermined
Modes of Introduction
Architecture and Design
Alternate Terms

Insecure Direct Object Reference / IDOR

The "Insecure Direct Object Reference" term, as described in the OWASP Top Ten, is broader than this CWE because it also covers path traversal (Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')). Within the context of vulnerability theory, there is a similarity between the OWASP concept and Use of Incorrectly-Resolved Name or Reference: Use of Incorrectly-Resolved Name or Reference.

Broken Object Level Authorization / BOLA

BOLA is used in the 2019 OWASP API Security Top 10 and is said to be the same as IDOR.

Horizontal Authorization

"Horizontal Authorization" is used to describe situations in which two users have the same privilege level, but must be prevented from accessing each other's resources. This is fairly common when using key-based access to resources in a multi-user context.