LiveActive security incident?Get immediate response
CWE Reference

CWE-1220: Insufficient Granularity of Access Control | Glexia

CWE-1220 (Insufficient Granularity of Access Control) weakness overview with consequences, detection methods, mitigations, related CVEs and MITRE ATT&CK context.

Release 4.20weaknessIncomplete

Glexia's Take · Automated analysis

CWE-1220: Insufficient Granularity of Access Control

Insufficient Granularity of Access Control represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.

Executive Impact

  • Confidentiality,Integrity,Availability,Access Control: Modify Memory,Read Memory,Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands,Gain Privileges or Assume Identity,Bypass Protection Mechanism,Other

Developer Pattern

CWE-1220 is the kind of defect developers can usually prevent with explicit validation, safer framework defaults, and tests that exercise hostile input or unsafe state transitions.

Automation confidence

high confidence from CWE-1220, 4.20.

Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.

Official CWE Definition

CWE-1220: Insufficient Granularity of Access Control

The product implements access controls via a policy or other feature with the intention to disable or restrict accesses (reads and/or writes) to assets in a system from untrusted agents. However, implemented access controls lack required granularity, which renders the control policy too broad because it allows accesses from unauthorized agents to the security-sensitive assets.

Type
weakness
Abstraction
Base
Status
Incomplete
Source
MITRE CWE definition

Developer And Remediation Guidance

How teams prevent and detect this weakness

Causes

  • In the above example, there is only one policy register that controls access to both read and write accesses to the AES-key registers, and thus the design is not granular enough to separate read and writes access for different agents. Here, agent with identities "1" and "2" can both read and write.,A good design should be granular enough to provide separate access controls to separate actions. Access control for reads should be separate from writes. Below is an example of such implementation where two policy registers are defined for each of these actions. The policy is defined such that: the AES-key registers can only be read or used by a crypto agent with identity "1" when bit #1 is set. The AES-key registers can only be programmed by a trusted firmware with identity "2" when bit #2 is set.
  • The AXI ensures that only users with appropriate privileges can access specific peripherals. For instance, a ROM module is accessible exclusively with Machine privilege, and AXI enforces that users attempting to read data from the ROM must possess machine privilege; otherwise, access to the ROM is denied. The access control information and configurations are stored in a ROM.,However, in the example code above, while assigning distinct privileges to AXI manager and subordinates, both the Platform-Level Interrupt Controller Specification (PLIC) and the Core-local Interrupt Controller (CLINT) (which are peripheral numbers 6 and 7 respectively) utilize the same access control configuration. This common configuration diminishes the granularity of the AXI access control mechanism.,In certain situations, it might be necessary to grant higher privileges for accessing the PLIC than those required for accessing the CLINT. Unfortunately, this differentiation is overlooked, allowing an attacker to access the PLIC with lower privileges than intended.,As a consequence, unprivileged code can read and write to the PLIC even when it was not intended to do so. In the worst-case scenario, the attacker could manipulate interrupt priorities, potentially modifying the system's behavior or availability.,To address the aforementioned vulnerability, developers must enhance the AXI access control granularity by implementing distinct access control entries for the Platform-Level Interrupt Controller (PLIC) and the Core-local Interrupt Controller (CLINT). By doing so, different privilege levels can be defined for accessing PLIC and CLINT, effectively thwarting the potential attacks previously highlighted. This approach ensures a more robust and secure system, safeguarding against unauthorized access and manipulation of interrupt priorities. [REF-1347]
  • Consider the following SoC design. The sram in HRoT has an address range that is readable and writable by unprivileged software and it has an area that is only readable by unprivileged software. The tbus interconnect enforces access control for subordinates on the bus but uses only one bit to control both read and write access. Address 0xA0000000 - 0xA000FFFF is readable and writable by the untrusted cores core{0-N} and address 0xA0010000 - 0xA001FFFF is only readable by the untrusted cores core{0-N}.

Remediation

  • Architecture and Design,Implementation,Testing:

Detection

  • Code review
  • SAST
  • DAST
  • Focused regression tests

Mappings

Related CVEs, CWEs, and ATT&CK context

Related CWEs

Related CVEs

Related CVE mappings appear after CVE records are cross-indexed.

Open CWE CVE mapping

ATT&CK Relevance

ATT&CK relevance is shown only when reviewed or responsibly inferred.