A09:2025 – Security Logging & Alerting Failures
Overview
Security Logging & Alerting Failures focuses on what happens after something goes wrong — or more accurately, what happens when the application fails to notice that something has already gone wrong.
This category is not about preventing attacks directly. It is about visibility, detection, and response. When logging and alerting are missing, incomplete, or ineffective, attackers can operate freely inside an application without resistance, often for long periods of time.
In many real-world breaches, the core issue is not that the attack was technically sophisticated, but that:
no one noticed it happening
no alerts were triggered
logs were insufficient to reconstruct what occurred
the attack blended into normal traffic
From an attacker’s perspective, weak logging and alerting dramatically reduce risk. Even noisy attacks become viable if no one is watching.
What A09 Is Really About
A09 is often misunderstood as a “SOC problem” or an operational concern. In reality, it is deeply connected to application design and implementation.
Security logging and alerting failures occur when:
security-relevant events are not logged
logs lack enough context to be useful
logs can be tampered with or deleted
alerts are missing, misconfigured, or ignored
detection relies entirely on external tools
An application can be full of vulnerabilities, but still defensible if attacks are detected early. Conversely, an application with minimal vulnerabilities becomes extremely dangerous when attackers can operate silently.
Logging Is a Security Control
Logging is not just telemetry or debugging output. It is a security control.
Security logging should answer questions such as:
Who did what?
From where?
When?
Was it allowed?
Did it fail?
Was it repeated?
Was it abnormal?
If logs cannot answer these questions, they are not security logs — they are noise.
Why This Category Is Hard to Measure
Unlike injection or access control issues, logging failures:
rarely produce direct errors
do not break functionality
often appear “fine” during development
are hard to test automatically
As a result:
developers assume logging exists
testers assume someone else is monitoring
security teams assume alerts are configured
Attackers exploit this gap.
Common Symptoms of A09 Failures
Applications affected by A09 commonly exhibit patterns such as:
successful attacks with no alerts
breaches discovered by third parties
long dwell time before detection
incomplete or missing forensic data
inability to determine attack scope
From an offensive perspective, these symptoms signal a low-risk environment for exploitation.
Logging vs Alerting (Important Distinction)
Logging and alerting are related, but not the same.
Logging records events.
Alerting triggers action based on those events.
Many applications log events but never alert on them. From an attacker’s point of view, logs without alerts are almost irrelevant.
If no one is notified in real time (or near real time), exploitation can continue uninterrupted.
Why Attackers Care About A09
Security logging and alerting failures:
increase attacker dwell time
reduce chance of detection
allow slow, methodical exploitation
enable large-scale abuse
hide privilege escalation attempts
A09 does not give attackers new capabilities — it removes consequences.
Relationship to Other OWASP Categories
A09 amplifies the impact of almost every other OWASP Top 10 risk:
A01 (Broken Access Control): unauthorized access goes unnoticed
A02 (Misconfiguration): exposed services are never flagged
A03 (Supply Chain): malicious changes are not detected
A04 (Crypto): weak crypto usage is invisible
A05 (Injection): probing and exploitation leave no trace
A08 (Integrity Failures): tampering is never detected
In practice, A09 is what allows other vulnerabilities to become incidents.
Attacker Mindset
When assessing logging and alerting, attackers ask:
What happens if I fail authentication repeatedly?
What happens if I access forbidden resources?
What happens if I enumerate IDs?
What happens if I exploit something successfully?
Does anyone notice?
If the answer is “nothing,” the environment is safe — for the attacker.
What Is Security Logging & Alerting?
Security logging and alerting is the capability of an application to record, monitor, and react to security-relevant events in a timely and reliable manner.
At its core, security logging answers what happened, while alerting answers what should be done about it.
In a secure application, logging and alerting provide:
visibility into user and system behavior
evidence for investigations and forensics
early detection of attacks and abuse
the ability to respond before damage escalates
Without them, an application operates blindly.
Security-Relevant Events
Not every log entry is a security log. Security logging focuses specifically on events that indicate risk, misuse, or abuse.
Examples of security-relevant events include:
authentication successes and failures
authorization failures
access to sensitive resources
privilege changes
administrative actions
unexpected errors and exceptions
validation failures
suspicious request patterns
integrity or policy violations
If these events are not logged, the application cannot defend itself beyond prevention controls.
Logging Is Not Debugging
A common mistake is treating logging as a development or troubleshooting feature.
Debug logs answer questions like:
“why did this crash?”
“what value caused this error?”
Security logs answer questions like:
“who attempted this?”
“was this allowed?”
“was this malicious?”
“is this happening repeatedly?”
An application can have extensive debug logs and still be completely blind from a security perspective.
Alerting Turns Logs into Defense
Logs alone do not stop attacks.
Alerting is the process of:
analyzing logged events
identifying suspicious or dangerous patterns
notifying humans or automated systems
triggering a response
Without alerting:
attacks are only discovered after damage
exploitation can continue indefinitely
logs become useful only post-incident
From an attacker’s perspective, logs without alerts are almost equivalent to no logs at all.
Where Logging and Alerting Fail
Security logging and alerting failures occur when:
security events are not logged at all
logs lack identity, context, or timestamps
logs are overwritten or deleted
logs are stored locally and never reviewed
alerts are misconfigured or disabled
alerts generate too many false positives
alerts exist but no one responds to them
These failures are rarely caused by a single bug. They are usually the result of design decisions, operational gaps, or misplaced assumptions.
Trust and Accountability
Logging and alerting are essential for accountability.
If an application cannot reliably determine:
who performed an action
whether it was authorized
whether it was normal or abnormal
Then it cannot:
attribute responsibility
detect abuse
enforce policy
support incident response
Attackers understand this and actively test for it.
Why A09 Matters Even in “Secure” Apps
An application can have:
strong authentication
strict access control
hardened configurations
And still fail catastrophically if logging and alerting are weak.
In those cases:
attackers move slowly
exploitation looks legitimate
damage accumulates quietly
detection happens too late
A09 exists because undetected attacks are often more damaging than blocked ones.
Common Security Logging & Alerting Failure Scenarios
Security logging and alerting failures rarely appear as a single obvious flaw. Instead, they emerge as patterns where visibility is incomplete, delayed, or misleading. From an attacker’s perspective, these scenarios define how safely exploitation can occur.
Below are the most common failure patterns seen in real-world applications.
Missing Logging for Security-Critical Events
One of the most basic failures is simply not logging events that matter.
Commonly missing logs include:
failed authentication attempts
authorization failures
access to sensitive resources
privilege changes
administrative actions
repeated validation failures
If these events are not logged, the application has no memory of abuse.
From an offensive perspective, this allows:
brute-force attempts without detection
silent privilege escalation
unnoticed access control bypasses
If nothing is recorded, nothing can be investigated.
Logging Only Successful Actions
Many applications log successful operations but ignore failures.
For example:
successful logins are logged, failed ones are not
completed transactions are logged, denied ones are ignored
valid API calls are logged, rejected ones are silent
This creates blind spots where:
attackers can probe limits safely
access control can be tested repeatedly
attack paths can be mapped without noise
Failures are often more interesting than successes — attackers know this.
Lack of Identity and Context in Logs
Logs that exist but lack context are often useless.
Common issues:
missing user identifiers
missing session or request IDs
missing source IP or client context
missing timestamps or time zones
missing resource identifiers
Without context, logs cannot answer:
who did this?
from where?
to what?
how often?
From an attacker’s perspective, low-quality logs reduce attribution and increase safety.
Client-Side Logging Assumptions
Some applications rely on:
browser logs
client-side telemetry
frontend error reporting
These logs are:
easy to disable
easy to manipulate
easy to bypass
Any logging that depends on the client cannot be trusted.
Attackers interact directly with backend APIs, where these logs never fire.
Logs That Are Never Monitored
Logging without monitoring is one of the most common A09 patterns.
Typical signs:
logs are written but never reviewed
logs are stored locally only
logs are rotated too aggressively
no one owns log review responsibility
From an attacker’s perspective:
noisy behavior is acceptable
repeated abuse is safe
exploitation can be automated
If no one is watching, detection does not exist.
Alerting Gaps and Misconfigurations
Alerts may exist but still fail in practice.
Common alerting failures:
alerts trigger only on extreme thresholds
alerts generate too many false positives
alerts are disabled due to “noise”
alerts are sent to unused channels
alerts lack actionable context
Attackers benefit when:
alerts are ignored
alerts are delayed
alerts are indistinguishable from noise
An ignored alert is functionally equivalent to no alert.
No Alerting on Authorization Failures
Authorization failures are some of the strongest indicators of malicious behavior.
However, many applications:
log them quietly
treat them as normal errors
never alert on repeated failures
This allows attackers to:
enumerate IDs
test role boundaries
brute-force access patterns
Repeated forbidden access attempts should never be silent.
Log Tampering and Integrity Issues
Logs themselves can become a target.
Common failures include:
logs stored on the same system as the app
lack of integrity protection
lack of access controls on logs
logs that can be deleted or overwritten
If an attacker can alter logs:
attacks can be erased
timelines can be manipulated
investigations become unreliable
Logs without integrity guarantees cannot be trusted.
Excessive Logging Without Signal
Some systems log everything — but alert on nothing meaningful.
Problems include:
massive log volume
lack of prioritization
no separation between security and non-security logs
This creates analyst fatigue and hides real attacks in noise.
From an attacker’s perspective, high noise environments provide cover.
Delayed Detection and Long Dwell Time
The ultimate symptom of A09 is late discovery.
Common outcomes:
breaches discovered months later
incidents reported by third parties
incomplete forensic reconstruction
unknown blast radius
Long dwell time almost always points to logging and alerting failures.
Why These Scenarios Matter
These scenarios show that A09 is not about “missing logs” — it is about missing awareness.
An application does not need to be perfect to be secure. It needs to be observable.
Attackers prefer systems where:
mistakes are invisible
probing is safe
exploitation blends in
response is slow or nonexistent
That is exactly what A09 enables.
Testing Perspective (Offensive Mindset)
From an offensive perspective, Security Logging & Alerting Failures are not about breaking controls — they are about removing consequences.
An attacker does not ask: “Can I exploit this?”
They ask: “Will anyone notice if I do?”
A09 testing focuses on answering that question.
Think in Terms of Visibility, Not Vulnerabilities
When testing A09, the goal is not to cause damage, but to understand:
what actions are visible
what actions are invisible
what actions trigger a response
what actions can be repeated safely
An application may be vulnerable in many ways, but if those vulnerabilities are detected quickly, exploitation becomes risky. A09 identifies where that risk disappears.
Start With Noisy Actions
Offensive testing often begins with actions that should be obvious.
Examples:
repeated failed logins
accessing forbidden endpoints
modifying IDs across users
triggering validation errors
sending malformed requests
If these actions:
produce no alerts
generate no visible response
leave no trace
Then stealthier attacks will almost certainly go unnoticed.
Observe System Reactions
Every test should be followed by one question: “What changed because of this?”
Watch for:
account lockouts
temporary blocks
rate limiting
error messages
forced re-authentication
A complete lack of reaction is a strong signal of logging and alerting weakness.
Abuse Legitimate Functionality
Many A09 failures are exposed by normal-looking behavior.
For example:
slow ID enumeration
gradual privilege testing
repeated edge-case requests
replaying legitimate API calls
If this behavior blends in with normal usage and triggers no detection, the environment favors attackers.
Test Repetition and Patterns
Single events may be ignored. Patterns should not be.
Key questions:
Can I repeat this action 10 times?
100 times?
1,000 times?
Over a long period?
If repetition does not escalate response, alerting is likely absent or ineffective.
Authorization Failures as a Signal
Authorization failures are high-value signals.
From an attacker’s mindset:
Forbidden responses are information
Repeated 403s are reconnaissance
Silent failures enable enumeration
Testing should focus on:
accessing restricted endpoints
modifying role-bound parameters
triggering ownership violations
If these attempts do not raise alerts, privilege escalation attempts can proceed safely.
Test Error and Exception Paths
Attackers often live in error states.
Try to:
force unexpected input
trigger backend exceptions
break workflows intentionally
cause partial failures
Then observe:
Are these logged?
Do alerts fire?
Does behavior change?
Many systems skip logging during exceptions — exactly when it is needed most.
API and Automation Focus
A09 failures are most visible at the API layer.
Attackers:
bypass UIs
automate requests
replay traffic
mimic legitimate clients
Testing should include:
direct API access
scripted requests
slow automation
unusual sequences
If APIs are not monitored separately from the UI, detection gaps are common.
Assume the Attacker Is Patient
Not all attacks are loud.
A skilled attacker:
moves slowly
stays within thresholds
avoids obvious spikes
blends into baseline traffic
A09 testing should reflect this by:
spacing requests over time
mimicking real users
avoiding obvious abuse patterns
If slow abuse is invisible, long-term compromise is possible.
Key Offensive Question
At every stage, ask:
“If I keep doing this for weeks, will anyone notice?”
If the honest answer is “probably not,” A09 is present.
Hands-on Testing Checklist – Security Logging & Alerting Failures (A09:2025)
This checklist is designed for active offensive testing, not policy reviews. Each item represents an action or question an attacker would consciously test to evaluate visibility, detection, and response.
The guiding principle is simple:
If abuse does not trigger detection, it can scale.
Final Attacker Mindset
Security logging and alerting failures are about operating without friction.
If an attacker can:
probe freely
escalate quietly
repeat actions
remain undetected
persist over time
Then the system is already compromised — it just doesn’t know it yet.
Last updated