OWASP NHI5:2025 Insecure Authorization Deep Dive

Introduction: Authorization, the Gate After Authentication

As the role of Non-Human Identities (NHIs) expands in IT systems and cloud environments, securing them has become crucial. The OWASP NHI Top 10 identifies major security threats related to these NHIs and suggests countermeasures. While the previously discussed NHI4: Insecure Authentication dealt with vulnerabilities in verifying 'who' an NHI is, this article focuses on NHI5:2025 Insecure Authorization.

Insecure authorization refers to security flaws occurring in the process of determining 'what' a successfully authenticated NHI 'can do'. In other words, even if authentication is successful, this issue allows access to unauthorized resources or the performance of unauthorized actions. This becomes a key pathway for attackers to abuse or escalate privileges within a system, causing significant damage. Proper authorization management is one of the core components of a Zero Trust architecture.

‍

Why is NHI5 Important?

NHIs often need access to sensitive data and core system functions. If the authorization process is flawed, an NHI requiring only minimal permissions might gain excessive access rights, or an attacker could use a compromised NHI to perform actions beyond its permitted scope. For instance, if a service account used in a CI/CD pipeline has unnecessary administrative privileges over the entire production environment, the compromise of that single account could jeopardize the whole system. This can lead to catastrophic consequences such as data breaches, system tampering, and service disruptions. Therefore, it is essential for developers, security professionals, and cloud engineers to understand how to securely design and manage NHI authorization mechanisms.

Dissecting NHI5: The Many Faces of Insecure Authorization

Threat Definition: What is 'Insecure Authorization' for NHIs?

In the NHI context, insecure authorization refers to any kind of defect that allows an authenticated NHI to access resources or functions beyond its permitted scope. This includes not only misconfigured permissions but also flaws in the authorization decision logic, inconsistencies in policy enforcement, and vulnerabilities in the overall permission management lifecycle (provisioning, review, revocation).

Common Pitfalls and Symptoms

Insecure authorization in NHI environments can manifest in the following forms:

1. Excessive Privilege Granting (Violation of the Principle of Least Privilege - PoLP):
   
   • This is the most common and core problem of NHI5. It occurs when NHIs are granted broad permissions (e.g., full read/write access, administrative-level privileges) far exceeding what is necessary for their actual tasks. This often happens for development convenience or management simplicity.
   • For example, an API needing only to read a specific database table might be granted write permissions for the entire database, or a service account needing to manage only specific cloud resources might be assigned a subscription-wide administrator role. The tendency to use broad, predefined built-in roles in cloud environments can exacerbate this issue.
   • The New York Times hack, where a GitHub token had excessive permissions allowing access to all repositories, was both an NHI4 (authentication failure - token theft) and an NHI5 (authorization failure - excessive permissions) issue. Had the compromised token possessed only minimal necessary permissions, the damage would have been significantly less.
2. Improper Permission Lifecycle Management:
   
   • This occurs when previously granted permissions are not properly revoked or adjusted even after the NHI's role or requirements change. This can lead to "Permission Creep."
   • For instance, access permissions for an NHI used in a specific project might remain even after the project concludes, or elevated permissions granted for a temporary task might not be revoked upon completion. This is linked to NHI1 (Improper Inventory & Management) and NHI7 (Inactive & Orphaned NHIs). It frequently happens when permission revocation processes are manual rather than automated.
3. Missing or Bypassable Authorization Checks:
   
   • This involves failing to properly verify an NHI's permissions at specific API endpoints or system functions, or the existence of paths allowing attackers to bypass authorization logic.
   • Examples include skipping permission checks by manipulating parameter values in a request (Parameter Tampering), omitting authorization checks for inter-API calls assuming internal trust, or exploiting flaws in error handling logic to bypass authorization steps.
4. Horizontal and Vertical Privilege Escalation Vulnerabilities:
   
   • Horizontal Privilege Escalation: A vulnerability allowing access to resources belonging to another NHI with the same privilege level. For example, if API A should only access User A's data but, due to a flaw in authorization logic, can also access User B's data (who has the same permission level). This requires special attention in multi-tenant environments.
   • Vertical Privilege Escalation: A vulnerability where an NHI with lower privileges exploits flaws in the authorization system to obtain higher privileges (e.g., administrator rights). This can occur if authorization checks for sensitive functions, like system configuration APIs, are inadequate.
5. Misconfiguration of IAM Policies and Roles in Cloud Environments:
   
   • This involves incorrectly configuring the complex permission management systems provided by cloud environments like AWS IAM, Azure RBAC, and GCP IAM. This is one of the most common mistakes in cloud security.
   • For example, overly permissive policies using wildcards (Resource: *, Action: *), roles applied to overly broad resource groups, incorrect use of condition keys or values, misunderstanding inheritance relationships, or missing external ID validation can unintentionally grant excessive permissions. Failure to properly utilize higher-level controls like AWS Service Control Policies (SCPs), Azure Management Group Policies, or GCP Organization Policies can also contribute to the problem.

Ripple Effects: Real-World Consequences of NHI5 Vulnerabilities

Insecure authorization can lead to the following severe consequences for systems:

• Compromise of Data Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability: Unauthorized NHIs could read sensitive data (confidentiality), tamper with financial transaction records (integrity), or delete critical system logs (availability).
• System Misuse and Service Disruption: Attackers can abuse the permissions of a compromised NHI to alter system configurations (e.g., disable security settings), cause cost overruns by excessively using resources, or disrupt core services.
• Facilitation of Attacker Lateral Movement: An NHI with excessive permissions (e.g., network-wide scanning rights) can serve as a stepping stone for attackers to easily move to other vulnerable servers or data stores within the system, expanding their access.
• Provision of Privilege Escalation Paths: Attackers who initially gain low-privilege access can exploit authorization vulnerabilities (e.g., misuse of permissions allowing specific system command execution) to obtain root or administrator privileges, leading to a full system takeover.
• Regulatory Compliance Violations and Legal Liability: Violating strict access control principles (especially least privilege) required by data protection regulations like GDPR, CCPA, HIPAA, or financial regulations like SOX can result in hefty fines or legal action.

‍Learning from Real Breaches (or Example Scenarios)

NHI5 (Insecure Authorization) often combines with other vulnerabilities (like NHI4 - Insecure Authentication) to lead to actual breaches. While identifying large-scale breaches solely caused by NHI5 can be challenging, the following scenarios illustrate the risks:

• Scenario 1: Cloud Storage Permission Misconfiguration (Detailed)
  
  • Situation: An image processing microservice A is granted access to the S3 bucket 'user-uploads'. For convenience during early development, an IAM policy with s3:* permissions was attached.
  • NHI5 Failure: Violation of the principle of least privilege. In reality, only s3:GetObject, s3:PutObject, and s3:DeleteObject actions were needed for the arn:aws:s3:::user-uploads/* resource. Bucket management permissions (s3:DeleteBucket, s3:PutBucketPolicy, etc.) were unnecessary.
  • Outcome: If microservice A is compromised (e.g., via a library vulnerability like Log4Shell), an attacker can use the acquired service account credentials not just to read and write objects, but also to perform far more destructive actions like changing the bucket policy to expose data publicly or deleting the bucket itself, causing data leakage or service unavailability.
• Scenario 2: API Authorization Logic Error (Detailed)
  
  • Situation: A SaaS application manages data for multiple customer tenants. There's an API /api/tenantA/settings for Tenant A's administrators, called by service account NHI-A.
  • NHI5 Failure: The API backend logic only looked at the tenantA part of the path and failed to verify if the authenticated NHI-A actually had administrative rights specifically for tenantA. Alternatively, it trusted a tenantId parameter in the request body, which was manipulable (Broken Object Level Authorization - BOLA, OWASP API Security Top 10 #1).
  • Outcome: An attacker compromising NHI-A could change the API path to /api/tenantB/settings or manipulate the tenantId in the request body to tenantB, allowing unauthorized modification of settings for another customer, Tenant B (Horizontal Privilege Escalation).
• Scenario 3: Failure to Revoke Temporary Permissions (Detailed)
  
  • Situation: For a large database migration task, a temporary CI/CD pipeline NHI was granted production database write permissions, intended to be valid for only 24 hours (e.g., using Azure PIM role assignment).
  • NHI5 Failure: The migration finished earlier than expected, but the assigned role was not set to automatically expire, or the manual revocation process was forgotten. Alternatively, a standard role assignment was used instead of a Just-In-Time (JIT) approach.
  • Outcome: If the credentials for this NHI are leaked during the remaining validity period (e.g., via CI/CD logs), an attacker could use the unnecessarily prolonged access to tamper with or exfiltrate data from the production database.

Strengthening Defenses: A Zero Trust-Based Approach to NHI Authorization Security

Countering the NHI5 threat requires a multi-layered authorization security strategy based on Zero Trust principles, similar to authentication. The approach "Never Trust, Always Verify, and Grant Least Privilege" is key.

Principle 1: Strict Enforcement of the Principle of Least Privilege (PoLP)

1. Grant Only Necessary Minimum Permissions: Assign NHIs exactly the permissions required to perform their tasks, and no more. Avoid granting excessive permissions 'just in case' or for 'management convenience'. Operate on a 'Deny by Default' policy baseline.
2. Utilize Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) and Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC): Define and assign permissions based on the NHI's role (e.g., 'Data Processing Service', 'Monitoring Agent') or attributes (e.g., environment='production', data sensitivity='high') to implement more granular and dynamic access control. ABAC offers more flexibility and context-awareness than RBAC.
3. Refine Cloud IAM Policies: In cloud environments, write IAM policies as specifically as possible. Specify particular resource ARNs (Amazon Resource Names), Azure Resource IDs, or GCP Resource Names. Explicitly allow (Allow) only the necessary actions. Use condition keys (e.g., aws:SourceIp, azure:ResourceGroup, gcp:RequestTime) whenever possible to strictly limit access based on IP range, resources with specific tags, time of day, etc. Minimize the use of wildcards (*) and scope them tightly if unavoidable.

Principle 2: Continuous Permission Review and Management

1. Regular Permission Reviews and Audits: Establish a process to periodically (e.g., quarterly) review and audit permissions assigned to NHIs to ensure they remain appropriate and adhere to the least privilege principle. Leverage cloud provider tools like AWS Access Analyzer, Azure Access Reviews, or third-party CIEM (Cloud Infrastructure Entitlement Management) solutions to effectively identify unused or excessive permissions.
2. Automated Permission Lifecycle Management: Implement systems to automatically provision the minimum necessary permissions based on roles when an NHI is created (e.g., using Infrastructure as Code tools like Terraform, CloudFormation) and automatically revoke or adjust permissions when roles change or services are decommissioned. Actively consider Just-In-Time (JIT) Access approaches. Models like Azure PIM for Service Principals or HashiCorp Vault allow granting necessary permissions temporarily (e.g., for a few hours) only when an NHI needs to perform a specific task, automatically revoking them upon completion or timeout. This significantly reduces the risk window associated with standing excessive privileges.

Principle 3: Implement Robust and Consistent Authorization Mechanisms

1. Enforce Authorization Checks at Every Access Point: Perform explicit authorization checks without exception for every API endpoint access, data store interaction, and system function call. Even internal communications (East-West traffic) in microservice architectures should undergo mutual authentication (e.g., mTLS) and authorization checks to align with Zero Trust.
2. Consider Centralized Authorization Policy Management: Where feasible, decouple authorization policies (Policy Decision Point, PDP) from application logic and manage them centrally. Allow individual services (Policy Enforcement Points, PEPs) to query the central policy store for consistent authorization decisions. Utilizing standardized policy engines like Open Policy Agent (OPA) can help implement consistent policy-based authorization control across diverse environments.
3. Secure Design and Testing of Authorization Logic: Carefully design authorization logic to prevent vulnerabilities like privilege escalation, authorization bypass (e.g., IDOR - Insecure Direct Object References), and BOLA. Validate the implementation through code reviews and thorough security testing (SAST, DAST, fuzzing, penetration testing). Refer to standards like OWASP ASVS (Application Security Verification Standard) or the API Security Top 10 for secure authorization patterns.

Principle 4: Continuous Monitoring and Anomaly Detection

1. Monitor Authorization Failures and Abuse Attempts: Thoroughly monitor and analyze authorization failure logs (Access Denied) generated during NHI resource access attempts. Implement SIEM or threat detection systems to alert and trigger investigations upon detecting abnormal patterns (e.g., repeated access failures from a specific NHI, attempts to call sensitive APIs not typically used, attempts to perform unauthorized actions).
2. Track and Audit Permission Changes: Track and log every change made to roles or policies assigned to NHIs (e.g., via CloudTrail, Azure Activity Log). This allows for rapid detection and response to unexpected permission modifications or unauthorized grants of excessive privilege.

Looking Ahead: Evolving Threats and the Regulatory Landscape

As cloud-native environments, automation, and Infrastructure as Code (IaC) proliferate, the role and number of NHIs will continue to grow, increasing the complexity and importance of managing their permissions. Attackers will devise more sophisticated methods to find and exploit authorization vulnerabilities. Furthermore, various Regulatory and Compliance Requirements like GDPR, SOX, and PCI-DSS demand strict controls over data and system access (particularly least privilege and access reviews), further highlighting the importance of NHI authorization management. Organizations must continually review and enhance their NHI authorization strategies, adopting automated tools and processes to keep pace with these changes.

Conclusion

NHI5: Insecure Authorization is a critical security threat that allows authenticated NHIs to access or manipulate systems and data beyond their permitted scope. It can manifest in various forms, including violation of the least privilege principle, improper permission lifecycle management, flawed authorization logic, and cloud IAM misconfigurations, potentially leading to devastating consequences like data breaches, system compromise, and compliance failures.

Effective defense requires a Zero Trust-based approach implementing the following strategies:

• Strict adherence to the Principle of Least Privilege (PoLP) and refined policy management.
• Continuous permission reviews and automated lifecycle management (considering JIT access).
• Robust and consistent authorization checks at all access points (considering central policy management).
• Continuous monitoring for anomaly detection, permission abuse, and auditing.

As the scope and impact of NHI activities increase, managing their permissions accurately and securely is a core challenge for modern IT environment security. A deep understanding of insecure authorization threats and systematic countermeasures are essential to protect organizational assets and maintain trust. You can find additional information on NHI security and management on the Cremit Blog.