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.)
CWE-441 Classe Brouillon
Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy')
A confused deputy vulnerability occurs when a system receives a request from a client and forwards it to an external destination without properly identifying the original source. This makes the…
Définition
What is CWE-441?
A confused deputy vulnerability occurs when a system receives a request from a client and forwards it to an external destination without properly identifying the original source. This makes the system appear to be the originator of the request, effectively turning it into an unintended proxy for the client.
Attackers exploit this flaw when they cannot reach a target system directly. By sending a malicious request to your vulnerable application, they can have it relayed to the protected target. Since the request now originates from your system's IP address and context, it can bypass network firewalls, IP-based allowlists, and hide the attacker's true location, enabling unauthorized access or actions.
This becomes a critical security issue only under specific conditions: your application must have higher privileges or different network access than the initial requester; the attacker must be blocked from contacting the target directly; and the attacker must be able to craft a request that your application forwards unintentionally. This often involves specifying an unexpected host, port, internal IP, or a restricted command within an otherwise permitted service request.
Impact réel
Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-441
-
FTP bounce attack. The design of the protocol allows an attacker to modify the PORT command to cause the FTP server to connect to other machines besides the attacker's.
-
RPC portmapper could redirect service requests from an attacker to another entity, which thinks the requests came from the portmapper.
-
FTP server does not ensure that the IP address in a PORT command is the same as the FTP user's session, allowing port scanning by proxy.
-
Web server allows attackers to request a URL from another server, including other ports, which allows proxied scanning.
-
CGI script accepts and retrieves incoming URLs.
-
Bounce attack allows access to TFTP from trusted side.
-
Web-based mail program allows internal network scanning using a modified POP3 port number.
-
URL-downloading library automatically follows redirects to file:// and scp:// URLs
Comment les attaquants l'exploitent
Parcours de l'attaquant étape par étape
- 1
Identifier un chemin de code qui traite des entrées non fiables sans validation.
- 2
Élaborer une charge utile qui exploite le comportement non sécurisé — injection, traversal, débordement ou abus de logique.
- 3
Délivrer la charge utile via une requête normale et observer la réaction de l'application.
- 4
Itérer jusqu'à ce que la réponse divulgue des données, exécute le code de l'attaquant ou élève les privilèges.
Exemple de code vulnérable
Vulnerable Other
A SoC contains a microcontroller (running ring-3 (least trusted ring) code), a Memory Mapped Input Output (MMIO) mapped IP core (containing design-house secrets), and a Direct Memory Access (DMA) controller, among several other compute elements and peripherals. The SoC implements access control to protect the registers in the IP core (which registers store the design-house secrets) from malicious, ring-3 (least trusted ring) code executing on the microcontroller. The DMA controller, however, is not blocked off from accessing the IP core for functional reasons.
The code in ring-3 (least trusted ring) of the microcontroller attempts to directly read the protected registers in IP core through MMIO transactions. However, this attempt is blocked due to the implemented access control. Now, the microcontroller configures the DMA core to transfer data from the protected registers to a memory region that it has access to. The DMA core, which is acting as an intermediary in this transaction, does not preserve the identity of the microcontroller and, instead, initiates a new transaction with its own identity. Since the DMA core has access, the transaction (and hence, the attack) is successful. Exemple de code sécurisé
Secure Other
The weakness here is that the intermediary or the proxy agent did not ensure the immutability of the identity of the microcontroller initiating the transaction.
The DMA core forwards this transaction with the identity of the code executing on the microcontroller, which is the original initiator of the end-to-end transaction. Now the transaction is blocked, as a result of forwarding the identity of the true initiator which lacks the permission to access the confidential MMIO mapped IP core. What changed: the unsafe sink is replaced (or the input is validated/escaped) so the same payload no longer triggers the weakness.
Liste de contrôle de prévention
How to prevent CWE-441
- Architecture and Design Enforce the use of strong mutual authentication mechanism between the two parties.
- Architecture and Design Whenever a product is an intermediary or proxy for transactions between two other components, the proxy core should not drop the identity of the initiator of the transaction. The immutability of the identity of the initiator must be maintained and should be forwarded all the way to the target.
Signaux de détection
How to detect CWE-441
Plexicus détecte automatiquement CWE-441 et ouvre une PR de correction en moins de 60 secondes.
Codex Remedium analyse chaque commit, identifie cette faiblesse précise et livre une pull request prête à être relue avec le correctif. Pas de tickets. Pas de transferts.
Questions fréquentes Qu'est-ce que CWE-441 ?
Quelle est la gravité de CWE-441 ?
Quels langages ou plateformes sont affectés par CWE-441 ?
Comment puis-je prévenir CWE-441 ?
Comment Plexicus détecte et corrige CWE-441 ?
Où puis-je en savoir plus sur CWE-441 ?
Frequently asked questions
Qu'est-ce que CWE-441 ?
A confused deputy vulnerability occurs when a system receives a request from a client and forwards it to an external destination without properly identifying the original source. This makes the system appear to be the originator of the request, effectively turning it into an unintended proxy for the client.
Quelle est la gravité de CWE-441 ?
MITRE n'a pas publié de note de probabilité d'exploitation pour cette faiblesse. Traitez-la comme un impact moyen jusqu'à ce que votre modèle de menace prouve le contraire.
Quels langages ou plateformes sont affectés par CWE-441 ?
MITRE lists the following affected platforms: Not OS-Specific, Not Architecture-Specific, Not Technology-Specific.
Comment puis-je prévenir CWE-441 ?
Enforce the use of strong mutual authentication mechanism between the two parties. Whenever a product is an intermediary or proxy for transactions between two other components, the proxy core should not drop the identity of the initiator of the transaction. The immutability of the identity of the initiator must be maintained and should be forwarded all the way to the target.
Comment Plexicus détecte et corrige CWE-441 ?
Le moteur SAST de Plexicus reconnaît la signature de flux de données de CWE-441 à chaque commit. Lorsqu'une correspondance est trouvée, notre agent Codex Remedium ouvre une PR de correction avec le code corrigé, les tests et un résumé d'une ligne pour le relecteur.
Où puis-je en savoir plus sur CWE-441 ?
MITRE publie la définition canonique à https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/441.html. Vous pouvez également consulter la documentation OWASP et NIST pour des conseils adjacents.
Faiblesses associées
Weaknesses related to CWE-441
CWE-610 Parent
Externally Controlled Reference to a Resource in Another Sphere
This vulnerability occurs when an application uses user-supplied input to reference a resource located outside its intended security…
CWE-1021 Frère
Improper Restriction of Rendered UI Layers or Frames
This vulnerability occurs when a web application fails to properly control whether its pages can be embedded within frames or UI layers…
CWE-15 Frère
External Control of System or Configuration Setting
This vulnerability occurs when an application allows users to directly modify critical system settings or configuration values from an…
CWE-384 Frère
Session Fixation
Session fixation occurs when an application authenticates a user without first destroying the previous session ID. This allows an attacker…
CWE-470 Frère
Use of Externally-Controlled Input to Select Classes or Code ('Unsafe Reflection')
This vulnerability occurs when an application uses unvalidated external input, like a URL parameter or form field, to dynamically decide…
CWE-601 Frère
URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect')
An open redirect vulnerability occurs when a web application uses unvalidated user input to determine the destination of a redirect,…
CWE-611 Frère
Improper Restriction of XML External Entity Reference
This vulnerability occurs when an application processes XML input without properly restricting external entity references. Attackers can…
CWE-73 Frère
External Control of File Name or Path
This vulnerability occurs when an application uses unvalidated user input to construct file or directory paths for filesystem operations.
CWE-918 Frère
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) occurs when a web application fetches a remote resource based on user-controlled input, but fails to…
Ressources
Further reading
Prêt quand vous l'êtes
Arrêtez de payer par développeur.
Commencez à fermer la boucle.
Plexicus est l'ASPM natif IA qui scanne, filtre, corrige, penteste et explique — de façon autonome. Développeurs illimités, dépôts illimités, actions IA à usage équitable. Vrai niveau gratuit, €269/mo annuel quand vous êtes prêt.