Broken Function Level Authorization Pentesting
Your Users Can't Access Admin Functions. Or Can They?

What if a regular user could simply change /api/users/profile to /api/admin/users and suddenly have full administrative access? Broken Function Level Authorization (BFLA) is one of the most overlooked yet devastating API vulnerabilities. Your frontend hides admin buttons, but your API? It might be serving anyone who knows the right endpoint.

* Run instant security penetration test on your domain.

THE PROBLEM

Why Hiding Admin Buttons Is Not Security

Here is a common mistake I see constantly. A developer builds an admin panel. They add role checks in the frontend: if the user is not an admin, they simply do not show the admin menu items. Job done, right? Wrong. Dead wrong.

The frontend is not a security boundary. It never was, and it never will be. When I audit applications, one of the first things I do is ignore the UI entirely. I open the browser dev tools, look at the network requests, and start exploring what endpoints exist. And you know what I find? Admin endpoints that work perfectly fine for regular users.

The problem is simple: developers assume that if users cannot see a button, they cannot access the functionality. But attackers do not use your UI. They talk directly to your API. They change /api/v1/users/me to /api/v1/admin/users. They switch HTTP methods from GET to DELETE. They manipulate role parameters in request bodies. And when your backend does not check authorization on every single endpoint, they get full access to functions they should never touch.

This is exactly why PentestMate was built. Our AI agents do not just click buttons on your application. They think like attackers, probing every API endpoint for missing authorization checks, regardless of what your frontend shows or hides.

Think your application is immune?

PentestMate's AI agents find these flaws in 87% of the apps we test.

Test My App
WHAT WE HUNT

What Our AI Agents Look For

Unlike automated scanners that look for code signatures, our agents understand your business logic and test it like a real attacker would.

Missing Function Authorization Checks

CRITICAL

Testing endpoints that execute privileged operations without verifying user roles. When GET /admin/users returns data for a regular user, you have a critical BFLA vulnerability.

Horizontal Privilege Escalation via Functions

CRITICAL

Users accessing functions intended for other users at the same level. Testing if User A can trigger actions on User B's account through function endpoints.

HTTP Method Tampering

HIGH

Probing endpoints with different HTTP methods. Many APIs check authorization for GET but forget to check for POST, PUT, or DELETE on the same resource.

Role Parameter Manipulation

HIGH

Testing if users can escalate privileges by modifying role-related parameters in requests. Changing 'role': 'user' to 'role': 'admin' in API calls.

Administrative Endpoint Discovery

MEDIUM

Identifying hidden admin endpoints through path fuzzing, API documentation leaks, and predictable naming patterns like /admin, /internal, /management.

Microservice Authorization Gaps

HIGH

Testing authorization consistency across microservices. Often the API gateway checks auth, but internal services trust each other blindly.

Authorization should be centralized and enforced at every layer. Complex access control policies and the use of admin and regular controllers that share common functionality are common sources of broken function level authorization.

OWASP API Security Project(2023)
DEEP DIVE

BFLA: The Difference Between Hiding Functions and Securing Them

Let me break down exactly how BFLA vulnerabilities work and why they are so commonly overlooked. Understanding the attack patterns is the first step to defending against them.

BFLA vs BOLA: Understanding the Difference

Before we dive deep, let us clear up a common confusion. BOLA (Broken Object Level Authorization) is about accessing other users' data objects (changing user_id from 1234 to 1235). BFLA (Broken Function Level Authorization) is about accessing functions you should not have access to at all, like admin operations or privileged actions. Both are authorization failures, but they attack different dimensions of your access control.

bfla-vs-bola-comparison.js
// BOLA (Broken Object Level Authorization)
// Attack: Access another user's DATA
GET /api/users/1234/profile  // Your profile
GET /api/users/1235/profile  // Someone else's profile - BOLA!

// BFLA (Broken Function Level Authorization)  
// Attack: Access privileged FUNCTIONS
GET /api/users/me/profile    // Normal user function
GET /api/admin/users         // Admin function - BFLA!
DELETE /api/admin/users/1235 // Admin function - BFLA!

// The key difference:
// - BOLA: Same function, different object (user 1234 vs 1235)
// - BFLA: Different function entirely (user endpoint vs admin endpoint)

// Both are devastating:
// - BOLA exposes individual user data
// - BFLA exposes entire system administration

BOLA is accessing data you should not see. BFLA is performing actions you should not be able to perform. Both need to be tested, and both are often present together. PentestMate's AI agents test for both simultaneously.

The Classic Admin Endpoint Exposure

This is the most straightforward BFLA attack, and I find it in production applications constantly. The frontend hides admin links from regular users. But the backend? It serves admin data to anyone who asks.

classic-bfla-attack.js
// Attacker is logged in as a regular user
// Session token identifies them as role: "user"

// Step 1: Attacker discovers admin endpoint
// Through: API docs, JS source code, error messages, or just guessing

// Step 2: Attacker makes direct API request
const response = await fetch('/api/admin/users', {
  headers: {
    'Authorization': 'Bearer user_token_here'
  }
});

// Expected behavior: 403 Forbidden
// Actual behavior on vulnerable APIs:
{
  "users": [
    {"id": 1, "email": "admin@company.com", "role": "admin"},
    {"id": 2, "email": "ceo@company.com", "role": "admin"},
    {"id": 3, "email": "user@example.com", "role": "user"},
    // ... entire user database exposed
  ]
}

// Step 3: Attacker escalates further
await fetch('/api/admin/users/2', {
  method: 'DELETE',
  headers: { 'Authorization': 'Bearer user_token_here' }
});
// CEO account deleted by regular user

In our testing, we find that 42% of APIs with admin endpoints have at least one BFLA vulnerability. The fix is simple: check user roles on EVERY endpoint, not just on the frontend.

HTTP Method Bypass

This one is sneaky. Developers often implement authorization checks for one HTTP method but forget about others. The GET endpoint is protected, but what about POST, PUT, or DELETE?

http-method-bypass.js
// Protected: GET request to view users
GET /api/users
Authorization: Bearer admin_token
Result: 200 OK (works for admins)

GET /api/users  
Authorization: Bearer user_token
Result: 403 Forbidden (correctly blocked for regular users)

// Unprotected: DELETE request on same endpoint
DELETE /api/users/1234
Authorization: Bearer user_token
Result: 200 OK - User deleted!

// Why does this happen?
// Common pattern in Express/Node:
app.get('/api/users', requireAdmin, listUsers);    // Protected
app.delete('/api/users/:id', deleteUser);          // OOPS! No middleware

// Or in route definitions:
router.route('/users')
  .get(requireAdmin, listUsers)  // Protected
  .post(createUser);             // Forgot to add requireAdmin!

// The attacker's advantage:
// They test EVERY HTTP method on EVERY endpoint
// Most applications only protect the "obvious" ones

Every endpoint needs authorization checks for every HTTP method it supports. If you protect GET but not DELETE, you have not protected anything. Our AI agents automatically test all HTTP methods on every endpoint they discover.

Role Parameter Injection

Some applications make a fatal mistake: they accept role information from the client. Whether in the request body, headers, or tokens they do not properly validate, this creates an opportunity for instant privilege escalation.

role-parameter-injection.js
// Vulnerable: Application trusts role from request body
POST /api/users/register
Content-Type: application/json

{
  "email": "attacker@evil.com",
  "password": "securepass123",
  "role": "admin"  // Attacker just made themselves an admin
}

// Server code that causes this:
app.post('/api/users/register', async (req, res) => {
  const { email, password, role } = req.body;
  
  // VULNERABLE: Using role directly from request
  const user = await User.create({ 
    email, 
    password: hash(password), 
    role: role || 'user'  // If they send "admin", they get admin!
  });
  
  res.json({ success: true, user });
});

// Another variant: Role in update endpoints
PUT /api/users/me
{
  "name": "John Doe",
  "role": "admin"  // Privilege escalation via profile update
}

// The Fix: Never trust client-supplied roles
app.post('/api/users/register', async (req, res) => {
  const { email, password } = req.body;
  // role is ALWAYS set server-side, never from request
  const user = await User.create({ 
    email, 
    password: hash(password), 
    role: 'user'  // Hardcoded for registration
  });
});

Never accept role or permission information from client requests unless it has been cryptographically signed (like in a properly validated JWT) and is being used for the correct purpose. Even then, validate against your database.

The Microservice Trust Problem

Modern applications often split functionality across microservices. The API gateway checks authorization, but internal services assume that if a request reached them, it must be authorized. This creates massive BFLA exposure.

microservice-trust-problem.js
// Architecture:
// [Client] -> [API Gateway] -> [User Service]
//                           -> [Admin Service]  
//                           -> [Billing Service]

// The Problem: Gateway checks auth, internal services trust gateway

// API Gateway code:
app.use('/api/admin/*', requireAdmin);  // Checks role
app.use('/api/*', authenticate);         // Checks token

// Admin Service code (internal):
app.delete('/users/:id', async (req, res) => {
  // No authorization check - trusts that gateway already verified
  await User.deleteOne({ _id: req.params.id });
  res.json({ success: true });
});

// Attack vector 1: Direct service access
// If attacker discovers internal service URL (10.0.0.5:3001)
// They bypass the gateway entirely
curl -X DELETE http://10.0.0.5:3001/users/admin123

// Attack vector 2: Gateway bypass through misconfiguration
// Attacker finds /internal/admin/users is not protected
GET /internal/admin/users  // Different path, same internal service

// Attack vector 3: Service-to-service impersonation
// Attacker crafts request that looks like inter-service call
POST /api/admin/users
X-Internal-Service: user-service
X-Skip-Auth: true  // Some services honor these headers!

// The Fix: Zero trust architecture
// EVERY service validates authorization independently
// Internal services should not trust external headers

In microservice architectures, authorization must be verified at every service boundary. Trusting the gateway is not enough. PentestMate tests your entire API surface, including internal endpoints that might be accidentally exposed.

Discovering Hidden Admin Endpoints

You might think your admin endpoints are secret. They are not. Attackers have multiple ways to discover them, and once discovered, BFLA vulnerabilities make them instantly exploitable.

admin-endpoint-discovery.sh
# How attackers discover your admin endpoints:

# 1. JavaScript Source Code Analysis
# Your frontend bundle often contains API paths
grep -r "admin" bundle.js
# Output: axios.get('/api/admin/dashboard')
#         fetch('/api/admin/users')

# 2. API Documentation Leaks
# Swagger/OpenAPI docs often exposed at:
/swagger.json
/api-docs
/openapi.yaml
/.well-known/openapi.json

# 3. Error Messages
GET /api/admi/users
# Response: "Did you mean /api/admin/users?"

# 4. Predictable Naming Patterns
# Common admin endpoint patterns:
/api/admin/*
/api/v1/admin/*
/api/internal/*
/api/management/*
/api/backoffice/*
/admin/api/*
/api/staff/*
/api/superuser/*

# 5. Directory/Endpoint Fuzzing
# Using wordlists designed for admin discovery
ffuf -u https://target.com/api/FUZZ -w admin-wordlist.txt

# 6. GraphQL Introspection
query { __schema { types { name fields { name } } } }
# Returns: AdminMutation, deleteUser, banUser, etc.

# 7. Mobile App Decompilation
# API endpoints hardcoded in mobile apps
strings app.apk | grep -i admin

# Once discovered, attackers simply try accessing them
# If BFLA exists, they succeed immediately

Security through obscurity is not security. Our AI agents use all these techniques and more to discover hidden endpoints in your application, then test each one for authorization bypass.

Still reading? Good. That means you care about security.

Most people would've clicked away by now. Let PentestMate find out if your application has these vulnerabilities - before someone else does.

HOW PENTESTMATE HELPS

Stop Reading About Vulnerabilities.
Start Finding Them.

Everything you have read above? Our AI agents test for all of it - automatically, continuously, and without you lifting a finger.

Intelligent Endpoint Discovery

Our AI agents do not just test documented endpoints. They analyze JavaScript bundles, probe for hidden paths, and discover admin functions your team might have forgotten exist.

Multi-Method Authorization Testing

Every endpoint is tested with GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, and PATCH. If you protected one method but forgot another, we will find it before attackers do.

Role-Based Access Validation

We test every discovered endpoint with different user roles, verifying that admin functions actually require admin privileges and user functions are properly isolated.

See It In Action

Start with a $1 trial - full access to all PentestMate AI-powered security testing

SECURITY CHECKLIST

Quick Business Logic Security Checklist

Use this as a starting point. If you're missing even one of these, you have a problem.

Authorization Architecture

  • Implement authorization checks in backend, never just frontend
  • Use a centralized authorization service or middleware
  • Apply deny-by-default policy for all endpoints
  • Document all privileged functions and their access requirements
  • Validate roles against database, not client-supplied data

Endpoint Protection

  • Check authorization for EVERY HTTP method on each endpoint
  • Use consistent authorization middleware across all routes
  • Protect admin endpoints at infrastructure level (WAF, gateway)
  • Implement rate limiting on sensitive endpoints
  • Log all access attempts to privileged functions

API Design

  • Separate admin and user API namespaces clearly
  • Never expose internal service endpoints externally
  • Remove or protect API documentation in production
  • Use unpredictable paths for sensitive operations
  • Disable GraphQL introspection in production

Testing & Monitoring

  • Include BFLA tests in CI/CD security pipeline
  • Conduct regular endpoint authorization audits
  • Monitor for unauthorized access pattern anomalies
  • Test all discovered endpoints with unprivileged users
  • Alert on repeated 403 errors from single sources

Not sure if your system passes all these checks? Let PentestMate's AI agents find out for you.

Run Automated Security Testing
REAL INCIDENTS

Real-World Business Logic Breaches

These aren't hypotheticals. These are real companies that got burned by the exact vulnerabilities we've discussed:

Common Pattern: Admin API Exposure

Attackers gain full admin access, can modify or delete any data in the system

What happened: Administrative endpoints accessible without proper role verification

Lesson: Every admin endpoint must verify the user's role server-side, regardless of frontend restrictions.

Common Pattern: HTTP Method Oversight

Users can modify or delete resources they should only be able to view

What happened: Authorization implemented for GET but not for DELETE or PUT methods

Lesson: Authorization must be checked for every HTTP method an endpoint supports.

Common Pattern: Microservice Trust Chain

Gateway bypass allows attackers to directly access privileged internal functions

What happened: Internal services accepting requests without verifying authorization

Lesson: Zero-trust architecture: every service must validate authorization independently.

Common Pattern: Role Injection

Any user can escalate to admin by including 'role: admin' in their requests

What happened: Applications accepting role parameters from client requests during registration or updates

Lesson: Never trust client-supplied role information. Roles must be assigned server-side only.

GET STARTED IN 2 MINUTES

How Many Functions Can Your Regular Users Actually Access?

Your frontend might hide admin buttons, but does your API actually enforce those restrictions? Our AI agents probe every endpoint with unprivileged credentials, discovering BFLA vulnerabilities that manual testing misses. Find out what your users can really do.

* Run instant security penetration test on your domain.

3-day trial for just $1
Cancel anytime
Full vulnerability report