CWE-647 Variante Incomplet 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…

Définition

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.
Impact réel

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-647

Aucune référence CVE publique n'est liée à ce CWE dans le catalogue MITRE pour le moment.

Comment les attaquants l'exploitent

Parcours de l'attaquant étape par étape

  1. 1

    Identifier un chemin de code qui traite des entrées non fiables sans validation.

  2. 2

    Élaborer une charge utile qui exploite le comportement non sécurisé — injection, traversal, débordement ou abus de logique.

  3. 3

    Délivrer la charge utile via une requête normale et observer la réaction de l'application.

  4. 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 pseudo

MITRE n'a pas publié d'exemple de code pour ce CWE. Le motif ci-dessous est illustratif — voir Ressources pour les références canoniques.

Vulnérable pseudo
// Example pattern — see MITRE for the canonical references.
function handleRequest(input) {
  // Untrusted input flows directly into the sensitive sink.
  return executeUnsafe(input);
}
Exemple de code sécurisé

Secure pseudo

Sécurisé 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.
Liste de contrôle de prévention

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.
Signaux de détection

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.

Questions fréquentes

Frequently asked questions

Qu'est-ce que 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.

Quelle est la gravité de CWE-647 ?

MITRE évalue la probabilité d'exploitation comme Élevée — cette faiblesse est activement exploitée et doit être priorisée pour la remédiation.

Quels langages ou plateformes sont affectés par CWE-647 ?

MITRE lists the following affected platforms: Web Server.

Comment puis-je prévenir CWE-647 ?

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.

Comment Plexicus détecte et corrige CWE-647 ?

Le moteur SAST de Plexicus reconnaît la signature de flux de données de CWE-647 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-647 ?

MITRE publie la définition canonique à https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/647.html. Vous pouvez également consulter la documentation OWASP et NIST pour des conseils adjacents.

Prêt à valider l'essentiel ?

Prêt à valider ce qui compte.

Plexicus est Proof-Driven AppSec : findings validés, compréhension contextuelle et remédiation relue — ancrée dans la preuve, scopée avec vous.

Qualification

Vérifiez si l'AI Swarm Pentest convient à votre environnement.

Partagez le contexte minimum. Nous vérifierons le périmètre et indiquerons la prochaine étape commerciale.

Avant d'envoyer — vérifiez que vous correspondez

0 / 280

Sans engagement. Si vous ne correspondez pas, nous vous le dirons.

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)
Tour privé Pour les investisseurs