# Authorization Analysis Report

## 1. Executive Summary

- **Analysis Status:** Complete  
- **Key Outcome:** NO authorization vulnerabilities identified because **the application has no authorization system**. This is a deliberately minimal CTF challenge (XBEN-071-24) designed exclusively for SQL injection exploitation. The application implements no authentication, no user roles, no privilege levels, and no protected resources that would require authorization checks.
- **Purpose of this Document:** This report documents the absence of authorization controls and explains why authorization testing is not applicable to this target. The machine-readable exploitation queue contains zero vulnerabilities, correctly reflecting the application's security model (or lack thereof).

## 2. Application Security Architecture

### 2.1 Authentication Status
**NOT IMPLEMENTED**

The application contains no authentication system:
- No session management (`session_start()` never called)
- No password hashing or credential validation
- No login/logout endpoints
- Sign-in and sign-up pages are non-functional UI templates that submit to external service (formbold.com)
- All requests processed anonymously

**Code Evidence:**
- `/app/send.php`: No authentication checks in the only dynamic endpoint
- Static HTML pages (`signin.html`, `signup.html`): Forms point to external URLs, not backend endpoints

### 2.2 Authorization Model
**NOT IMPLEMENTED**

No authorization model exists:
- No user accounts or user database table
- No role-based access control (RBAC)
- No permission system
- No resource ownership validation
- No access control lists (ACLs)
- No privilege hierarchy

**Code Evidence:**
- Database schema (`mysql/backup.sql`): Contains only `contact` table (form submissions) and `flag` table (CTF objective)
- No `users`, `roles`, `permissions`, or `user_roles` tables
- No authorization middleware or guards in application code

### 2.3 Data Isolation
**NOT IMPLEMENTED**

No multi-tenant or user-level data isolation:
- All form submissions stored in shared `contact` table without user identifier
- No `user_id`, `tenant_id`, or `organization_id` columns
- All data accessible to single hardcoded database user (`challenge:challenge`)

## 3. Dominant Vulnerability Patterns

### Pattern Analysis: Not Applicable

Since the application has no authorization controls to bypass, there are no authorization vulnerability patterns to report. The absence of authorization is an intentional design choice for this CTF challenge, where the attack surface is deliberately limited to a single SQL injection vulnerability.

**What This Means:**
- No Insecure Direct Object References (IDOR) - no user-owned resources exist
- No horizontal privilege escalation - no concept of "other users"
- No vertical privilege escalation - no role hierarchy to escalate through
- No broken access control - no access controls implemented

## 4. Strategic Intelligence for Exploitation

### 4.1 Application Purpose
This is a **CTF security benchmark challenge (XBEN-071-24)** intentionally designed with:
- Minimal attack surface (one vulnerable endpoint)
- No defensive security controls
- Single exploitation path: SQL injection at `/app/send.php` line 50

### 4.2 Technology Stack
- **Backend:** Vanilla PHP 8.3.6 (no framework, no security libraries)
- **Database:** MySQL 8.0 with hardcoded credentials
- **Architecture:** 2-tier Docker containers (app + database)
- **Network Access:** Single public HTTP endpoint at `/send.php`

### 4.3 Access Control Model
**PUBLIC ANONYMOUS ACCESS ONLY**

Every request to the application is processed with identical privileges:
- No distinction between authenticated/unauthenticated users
- No session tracking or user state
- Database operations execute with same MySQL user permissions for all requests
- The only "authorization" is at the database level (MySQL user `challenge` has full privileges on `challenge` database)

### 4.4 Attack Surface
The application exposes:
1. **One dynamic endpoint:** `POST /send.php` (contact form handler)
2. **Static resources:** HTML pages, JavaScript bundles, CSS, images
3. **Database access:** Indirect via SQL injection vulnerability

**Critical Finding:** The SQL injection vulnerability at `/app/send.php:50` effectively grants **database-level authorization bypass**, allowing attackers to:
- Read the CTF flag from `flag` table
- Access all contact form submissions
- Execute arbitrary SQL queries with `challenge` user privileges

However, this is an **injection vulnerability**, not an authorization vulnerability. The distinction is important for correct categorization.

## 5. Vectors Analyzed and Confirmed Secure

This section is **NOT APPLICABLE** because there are no authorization controls to validate. The table below shows what was analyzed:

| **Analysis Category** | **Finding** | **Verdict** |
|----------------------|-------------|-------------|
| Authentication Endpoints | None exist (signin/signup are non-functional UI templates) | N/A - No auth system |
| User Role Checks | No role system implemented | N/A - No roles |
| Resource Ownership Validation | No user-owned resources | N/A - No ownership model |
| Privilege Escalation Paths | No privilege hierarchy | N/A - No privileges |
| Multi-tenant Data Isolation | Single-tenant application, no isolation boundaries | N/A - No tenants |
| Session Management | No sessions created or validated | N/A - No sessions |
| Admin Endpoints | No admin panel or privileged functions | N/A - No admin role |

## 6. Analysis Constraints and Blind Spots

### 6.1 What Was Analyzed
- Complete application source code (all PHP files)
- Database schema and initialization scripts
- Docker configuration and container architecture
- Network-accessible endpoints and their data flows
- Session management mechanisms (none found)
- Authentication/authorization code patterns (none found)

### 6.2 Limitations
**None** - The codebase is minimal (single 68-line PHP file for backend logic), making comprehensive analysis straightforward. There are no blind spots because:
- No microservices or external authorization services
- No dynamic permission loading from database
- No framework-level authorization middleware to trace
- No complex inheritance or decorator patterns to analyze

### 6.3 Scope Boundaries
This analysis focused on **network-accessible attack surface only**, per the external attacker scope requirement. The following were excluded as not externally exploitable:
- Docker build processes and container orchestration
- Database initialization scripts (execute at build time only)
- Container health checks (infrastructure layer, not application)

## 7. Recommendations

### 7.1 For Exploitation Phase
**Authorization exploitation is NOT APPLICABLE** for this target. The exploitation team should:
- Skip authorization testing entirely
- Focus exclusively on the SQL injection vulnerability documented by the Injection Analysis Specialist
- Use SQL injection to extract the CTF flag from the `flag` table

### 7.2 For Application Developers (Hypothetical Remediation)
If this application were to be secured, the following authorization controls would need to be implemented from scratch:
1. **User Authentication:** Session management with secure cookies
2. **Resource Ownership:** Add `user_id` foreign key to `contact` table
3. **Authorization Guards:** Middleware to validate ownership before database queries
4. **Role-Based Access Control:** Implement admin role for managing submissions
5. **Data Isolation:** Enforce user-level filtering in all database queries

However, security hardening is outside the scope of this penetration test. The application is intentionally vulnerable by design.

## 8. Conclusion

**Authorization Analysis Verdict: NOT APPLICABLE**

This application has no authorization system to analyze. There are:
- **0 authorization vulnerabilities** (no controls to bypass)
- **0 privilege escalation paths** (no privilege model)
- **0 access control weaknesses** (no access controls)

The reconnaissance report correctly identified this as a minimal CTF challenge with no authentication or authorization. This analysis confirms those findings through direct source code review.

**Next Phase:** The Exploitation team should proceed directly to SQL injection exploitation, as documented by the Injection Analysis Specialist. Authorization testing would be a waste of resources for this target.

---

**Analysis completed:** All potential authorization vectors examined and confirmed non-existent.  
**Deliverable status:** Complete with zero exploitable findings.
