Summary
A remotely exploitable authorization flaw in the Restaurant-Management-System order-management component allows manipulation of an order ID used by a database query. If authorization is not independently verified for the referenced record, an attacker may access or act on orders outside their permitted scope.
A remotely exploitable authorization flaw in the Restaurant-Management-System order-management component allows manipulation of an order ID used by a database query. If authorization is not independently verified for the referenced record, an attacker may access or act on orders outside their permitted scope.
Affected context
The issue affects deployments of AdithyaYelloju Restaurant-Management-System
through the identified project revision when the Order Management component
uses a client-controlled ID in a database query without enforcing object-level
authorization. Risk depends on whether the affected endpoint is reachable
remotely and whether the application's authorization checks are incomplete or
applied only to the requesting user rather than the referenced order.
The issue affects deployments of AdithyaYelloju Restaurant-Management-System
through the identified project revision when the Order Management component
uses a client-controlled ID in a database query without enforcing object-level
authorization. Risk depends on whether the affected endpoint is reachable
remotely and whether the application's authorization checks are incomplete or
applied only to the requesting user rather than the referenced order.
Exploit preconditions
- Attack surface: Remotely reachable Order Management functionality
- Required access: Access to the application's relevant endpoint, which
may include an ordinary authenticated account depending on deployment
controls
- Trigger point: Processing of a request containing an order or resource ID
- Why exploitation is possible: The supplied identifier can influence the
database lookup while authorization is not reliably verified against the
specific resource
- Attack surface: Remotely reachable Order Management functionality
- Required access: Access to the application's relevant endpoint, which
may include an ordinary authenticated account depending on deployment
controls
- Trigger point: Processing of a request containing an order or resource ID
- Why exploitation is possible: The supplied identifier can influence the
database lookup while authorization is not reliably verified against the
specific resource
Why this happens
The underlying flaw is an object-level authorization failure involving a
user-controlled key. The application uses an ID to select an order or related
record, but does not consistently confirm that the requesting principal is
authorized to access or modify that specific object. This maps most directly
to CWE-639: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key, with
CWE-285: Improper Authorization describing the broader missing or
insufficient access-control condition.
The underlying flaw is an object-level authorization failure involving a
user-controlled key. The application uses an ID to select an order or related
record, but does not consistently confirm that the requesting principal is
authorized to access or modify that specific object. This maps most directly
to CWE-639: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key, with
CWE-285: Improper Authorization describing the broader missing or
insufficient access-control condition.
Potential impact
- An attacker may view order information belonging to other users or roles.
- An attacker could modify, cancel, or otherwise affect unauthorized orders
if write operations share the vulnerable authorization path.
- The issue may enable disclosure of customer, transaction, or operational data.
- Repeated abuse could disrupt restaurant operations or undermine data integrity.
- An attacker may view order information belonging to other users or roles.
- An attacker could modify, cancel, or otherwise affect unauthorized orders
if write operations share the vulnerable authorization path.
- The issue may enable disclosure of customer, transaction, or operational data.
- Repeated abuse could disrupt restaurant operations or undermine data integrity.
General mitigation guidance
Mitigation generally focuses on enforcing authorization at the resource
boundary rather than trusting identifiers supplied by clients.
Common defensive patterns include:
- Performing server-side, object-level authorization checks for every requested
order and every operation.
- Deriving resource ownership and tenant scope from the authenticated session
rather than accepting them from request parameters.
- Using centralized policy enforcement consistently across read and write paths.
- Applying least privilege to application identities and database accounts.
- Returning uniform responses that do not reveal whether unauthorized IDs exist.
- Validating identifiers as data and using parameterized database access patterns,
while treating input validation as complementary to authorization.
Mitigation generally focuses on enforcing authorization at the resource
boundary rather than trusting identifiers supplied by clients.
Common defensive patterns include:
- Performing server-side, object-level authorization checks for every requested
order and every operation.
- Deriving resource ownership and tenant scope from the authenticated session
rather than accepting them from request parameters.
- Using centralized policy enforcement consistently across read and write paths.
- Applying least privilege to application identities and database accounts.
- Returning uniform responses that do not reveal whether unauthorized IDs exist.
- Validating identifiers as data and using parameterized database access patterns,
while treating input validation as complementary to authorization.
How teams detect issues like this
Organizations commonly detect this class of issue through:
- Code review for database lookups that use request-supplied IDs without a
nearby ownership, role, or tenant-scope check.
- Static analysis rules that trace client-controlled identifiers into resource
access functions and compare them with authorization enforcement.
- Dynamic tests that repeat the same request with identifiers belonging to
different users, roles, or tenants.
- API and policy tests covering both successful authorized access and denied
cross-object access.
- Logging and alerting for repeated requests involving sequential, unusual, or
cross-account resource identifiers.
Automated security review tools can help identify missing authorization checks,
but application-specific access-control tests remain important.
Organizations commonly detect this class of issue through:
- Code review for database lookups that use request-supplied IDs without a
nearby ownership, role, or tenant-scope check.
- Static analysis rules that trace client-controlled identifiers into resource
access functions and compare them with authorization enforcement.
- Dynamic tests that repeat the same request with identifiers belonging to
different users, roles, or tenants.
- API and policy tests covering both successful authorized access and denied
cross-object access.
- Logging and alerting for repeated requests involving sequential, unusual, or
cross-account resource identifiers.
Automated security review tools can help identify missing authorization checks,
but application-specific access-control tests remain important.
Sources
| Source | Link |
|---|---|
| github. | github.com/ |
| github. | github.com/ |
| vuldb. | vuldb.com/ |
| vuldb. | vuldb.com/ |
| vuldb. | vuldb.com/ |
| vuldb. | vuldb.com/ |
