Summary
Zoraxy contains an improper authorization flaw in the Path Exception Matcher used by its dynamic proxy authentication handling. A remotely located attacker may manipulate path-prefix matching to bypass intended Basic Authentication controls when a vulnerable proxy route is exposed.
Zoraxy contains an improper authorization flaw in the Path Exception Matcher used by its dynamic proxy authentication handling. A remotely located attacker may manipulate path-prefix matching to bypass intended Basic Authentication controls when a vulnerable proxy route is exposed.
Affected context
The issue occurs in Zoraxy's dynamic proxy authentication provider, specifically the handling of path exceptions in mod/dynamicproxy/authProviders.go. It becomes risky when externally reachable proxy routes rely on path-prefix matching to decide whether Basic Authentication is required and attacker-controlled request paths are evaluated inconsistently with the authorization policy.
The issue occurs in Zoraxy's dynamic proxy authentication provider, specifically the handling of path exceptions in mod/dynamicproxy/authProviders.go. It becomes risky when externally reachable proxy routes rely on path-prefix matching to decide whether Basic Authentication is required and attacker-controlled request paths are evaluated inconsistently with the authorization policy.
Exploit preconditions
- Attack surface: Network-accessible Zoraxy dynamic proxy endpoint
- Required access: Ability to send requests to an exposed proxy route; valid credentials are not necessarily required if the matching logic can be bypassed
- Trigger point: Path-prefix evaluation during Basic Authentication handling
- Why exploitation is possible: A manipulated request path may be treated as an authorization exception, causing authentication enforcement to differ from the intended route policy
- Attack surface: Network-accessible Zoraxy dynamic proxy endpoint
- Required access: Ability to send requests to an exposed proxy route; valid credentials are not necessarily required if the matching logic can be bypassed
- Trigger point: Path-prefix evaluation during Basic Authentication handling
- Why exploitation is possible: A manipulated request path may be treated as an authorization exception, causing authentication enforcement to differ from the intended route policy
Why this happens
The vulnerability results from insufficiently strict authorization decisions based on path-prefix matching. When path-derived exceptions are trusted without consistently canonicalizing and validating the effective request path, an attacker may cause a protected route to be classified as exempt from authentication. This behavior maps primarily to CWE-285: Improper Authorization and is also related to CWE-266: Incorrect Privilege Assignment, because access privileges are incorrectly assigned based on ambiguous path-matching logic.
The vulnerability results from insufficiently strict authorization decisions based on path-prefix matching. When path-derived exceptions are trusted without consistently canonicalizing and validating the effective request path, an attacker may cause a protected route to be classified as exempt from authentication. This behavior maps primarily to CWE-285: Improper Authorization and is also related to CWE-266: Incorrect Privilege Assignment, because access privileges are incorrectly assigned based on ambiguous path-matching logic.
Potential impact
- An attacker may access proxy routes intended to require authentication
- Protected application data or administrative functionality could be exposed
- Downstream services may receive unauthorized requests
- Account, session, or service-level security boundaries could be weakened
- An attacker may access proxy routes intended to require authentication
- Protected application data or administrative functionality could be exposed
- Downstream services may receive unauthorized requests
- Account, session, or service-level security boundaries could be weakened
General mitigation guidance
Mitigation generally focuses on making authorization decisions independent of ambiguous path interpretation.
Common defensive patterns include:
- Canonicalizing and validating request paths before applying authorization rules
- Using exact, normalized route matching where possible instead of broad prefix exceptions
- Applying authentication by default and requiring explicit, narrowly scoped exclusions
- Ensuring authentication and authorization checks use the same normalized path representation
- Restricting proxy exposure and applying least privilege to downstream service accounts
- Adding regression tests for encoded, normalized, nested, and boundary-adjacent paths
Mitigation generally focuses on making authorization decisions independent of ambiguous path interpretation.
Common defensive patterns include:
- Canonicalizing and validating request paths before applying authorization rules
- Using exact, normalized route matching where possible instead of broad prefix exceptions
- Applying authentication by default and requiring explicit, narrowly scoped exclusions
- Ensuring authentication and authorization checks use the same normalized path representation
- Restricting proxy exposure and applying least privilege to downstream service accounts
- Adding regression tests for encoded, normalized, nested, and boundary-adjacent paths
How teams detect issues like this
Organizations can look for this issue through:
- Static analysis and review rules for path-based authorization decisions
- Code review signals involving prefix comparisons, exception lists, and inconsistent path normalization
- Dynamic tests that compare protected-route behavior across equivalent and specially formatted paths
- Policy checks requiring authentication-by-default for reverse-proxy routes
- Monitoring for unauthenticated requests reaching endpoints designated as protected
Automated security testing and code review tools may help identify inconsistent authorization behavior during development.
Organizations can look for this issue through:
- Static analysis and review rules for path-based authorization decisions
- Code review signals involving prefix comparisons, exception lists, and inconsistent path normalization
- Dynamic tests that compare protected-route behavior across equivalent and specially formatted paths
- Policy checks requiring authentication-by-default for reverse-proxy routes
- Monitoring for unauthenticated requests reaching endpoints designated as protected
Automated security testing and code review tools may help identify inconsistent authorization behavior during development.
