Clarify that GUIDs are not an authorization control - #155
Open
arefabdollahi wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
This PR clarifies that GUIDs/UUIDs improve identifier unpredictability but do not replace authorization checks.
Motivation
The current guidance correctly recommends using GUIDs/UUIDs instead of predictable identifiers.
However, developers sometimes misunderstand this recommendation and assume that using unguessable identifiers eliminates the need for authorization validation.
This PR explicitly distinguishes identifier entropy from authorization and includes a practical example demonstrating how leaked GUIDs can still lead to Broken Object Level Authorization (BOLA).
Why this matters
Even when object identifiers are cryptographically strong, every request must still verify that the authenticated user is authorized to access the requested object.
This clarification reinforces an important security principle and may help prevent a common implementation mistake observed during real-world security assessments.