CWE-647 Variant Incomplete High likelihood

Use of Non-Canonical URL Paths for Authorization Decisions

This vulnerability occurs when an application's authorization logic relies on specific URL paths but fails to enforce a single, standardized format. Attackers can bypass access controls by using…

Definition

What is CWE-647?

This vulnerability occurs when an application's authorization logic relies on specific URL paths but fails to enforce a single, standardized format. Attackers can bypass access controls by using alternative, equivalent URL formats that the system doesn't recognize as the same protected resource.
Applications often define access rules for specific URLs, but many different URL formats can point to the same page. If the authorization check doesn't first convert URLs to a canonical (standardized) form, attackers can use variations like different character encodings, case changes, IP addresses instead of domain names, trailing slashes, or explicit port numbers to bypass security checks. Each variation appears different to the authorization system while loading the same protected content. To prevent this, always normalize URLs to a single canonical format before checking permissions. Implement a default-deny approach that rejects any non-standard URL format. This involves stripping unnecessary elements like default ports, removing trailing slashes, converting to lowercase, decoding encoded characters, and resolving hostnames consistently before any authorization decision is made.
Auswirkungen in der Praxis

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-647

Bisher sind in MITREs Katalog keine öffentlichen CVE-Referenzen mit dieser CWE verknüpft.

Wie Angreifer es ausnutzen

Angreiferpfad Schritt für Schritt

  1. 1

    Identifiziere einen Codepfad, der nicht vertrauenswürdige Eingaben ohne Validierung verarbeitet.

  2. 2

    Erzeuge eine Payload, die das unsichere Verhalten auslöst — Injection, Traversal, Overflow oder Logik-Missbrauch.

  3. 3

    Liefere die Payload über einen normalen Request aus und beobachte die Reaktion der Anwendung.

  4. 4

    Iteriere, bis die Antwort Daten preisgibt, Angreifer-Code ausführt oder Berechtigungen eskaliert.

Verwundbares Codebeispiel

Vulnerable pseudo

MITRE hat kein Codebeispiel für diese CWE veröffentlicht. Das untenstehende Muster ist illustrativ — kanonische Referenzen findest du unter Ressourcen.

Verwundbar pseudo
// Example pattern — see MITRE for the canonical references.
function handleRequest(input) {
  // Untrusted input flows directly into the sensitive sink.
  return executeUnsafe(input);
}
Sicheres Codebeispiel

Secure pseudo

Sicher 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.
Präventions-Checkliste

How to prevent CWE-647

  • Architecture and Design Make access control policy based on path information in canonical form. Use very restrictive regular expressions to validate that the path is in the expected form.
  • Architecture and Design Reject all alternate path encodings that are not in the expected canonical form.
Erkennungssignale

How to detect CWE-647

Automated Static Analysis High

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-647

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.

Häufig gestellte Fragen

Frequently asked questions

Was ist CWE-647?

This vulnerability occurs when an application's authorization logic relies on specific URL paths but fails to enforce a single, standardized format. Attackers can bypass access controls by using alternative, equivalent URL formats that the system doesn't recognize as the same protected resource.

Wie gravierend ist CWE-647?

MITRE stuft die Exploit-Wahrscheinlichkeit als hoch ein — diese Schwachstelle wird aktiv in freier Wildbahn ausgenutzt und sollte priorisiert behoben werden.

Welche Sprachen oder Plattformen sind von CWE-647 betroffen?

MITRE lists the following affected platforms: Web Server.

Wie kann ich CWE-647 verhindern?

Make access control policy based on path information in canonical form. Use very restrictive regular expressions to validate that the path is in the expected form. Reject all alternate path encodings that are not in the expected canonical form.

Wie erkennt und behebt Plexicus CWE-647?

Die SAST-Engine von Plexicus erkennt die Datenfluss-Signatur von CWE-647 bei jedem Commit. Bei einem Treffer öffnet unser Codex-Remedium-Agent einen Fix-PR mit korrigiertem Code, Tests und einer einzeiligen Zusammenfassung für den Reviewer.

Wo erfahre ich mehr über CWE-647?

MITRE veröffentlicht die kanonische Definition unter https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/647.html. Für ergänzende Hinweise kannst du auch die OWASP- und NIST-Dokumentation heranziehen.

Bereit, das Wesentliche zu validieren?

Bereit zu validieren, was zählt.

Plexicus ist Proof-Driven AppSec: validierte Funde, kontextuelles Verständnis und geprüfte Remediation — in Evidenz verankert, mit Ihnen gescoped.

Qualifizierung

Prüfen Sie, ob AI Swarm Pentest zu Ihrer Umgebung passt.

Teilen Sie den wichtigsten Kontext. Wir prüfen den Umfang und nennen den nächsten kommerziellen Schritt.

Vor dem Absenden — prüfen Sie, ob Sie passen

0 / 280

Keine Verpflichtung. Wenn Sie nicht passen, sagen wir es Ihnen.

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 authorized 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)
Private Runde Für Investoren