Revise 'Weak Login Function' subcategory
See original GitHub issueAs discussed in #127 it was decided to keep current P3 severity rating of Broken Authentication and Session Management
> Weak Login Function
> Over HTTP
. However the discussion provoked a more in depth analysis of how the VRT addresses this issue. As a result we would like to propose a more granular classification. Please see the image with two potential options:
![screen shot 2018-02-21 at 8 42 53 pm](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/24785104/36517839-7f5d0eca-1749-11e8-9bb9-8dd9a1143758.png)
As always all feedback is appreciated!
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 6 years ago
- Reactions:1
- Comments:19 (9 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Weak Login Function | Pentest Vulnerability Wiki - Cobalt.io
Penetration testing for a common vulnerability such as a weak login function can be easy with a PtaaS platform. Learn more with the...
Read more >Access control vulnerabilities and privilege escalation
For example, an administrator might be able to modify or delete any user's ... Some applications determine the user's access rights or role...
Read more >CWE-284: Improper Access Control (4.9) - MITRE
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, ...
Read more >Monitoring Active Directory for Signs of Compromise
This subcategory reports changes to objects in AD DS. The types of changes that are reported are create, modify, move, and undelete operations ......
Read more >10 Common Web Security Vulnerabilities - Toptal
The poor man's security misconfiguration solution is post-commit hooks, ... as an attacker can always forge a request to the “hidden” functionality.
Read more >
Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start Free
Top Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
I think the question of whether this is a useful bug class to customers, and whether its actually being fixed or simply being ignored, can be resolved rather easily: pull all submissions of “Login over HTTP” from the past 6 months, and compare the number of “unresolved” to “resolved” ones.
Yes
As long as there’s any benefit from distinguishing every single insecure protocol then yes, otherwise a protocol-agnostic entry could be a better option. It is surprising to see that this would be considered a bad thing. Aren’t we here to make our customers secure?
We have not observed it being used this way
Please see below
That is a good idea, but as @jhaddinx mentioned the other day, the unresolved/resolved states are not an accurate way to measure what was actually fixed. We dug a little bit deeper here and actually checked what was fixed, the numbers look good and the proposed changes relate to those to some extent, with the exception of staging instances, which I would love your opinion on