What is Broken Function Level Authorization (BFLA)

Modern businesses depend on application programming interfaces (APIs) to power digital services, integrations, cloud platforms, and partner networks. APIs have become essential infrastructure for digital products. Despite this, API security remains a major weakness for many organizations.

According to Gartner research, securing APIs is now a top concern for enterprise security leaders. Gartner highlights that the explosive growth of APIs is expanding the enterprise attack surface and creating new opportunities for malicious activity if proper protections are not in place. In addition, Gartner found that a significant portion of organizations 37% consider API security among their most pressing security challenges.

APIs also have a disproportionate impact when breached. Gartner notes that API related breaches tend to result in significantly more leaked data than the average security breach, underscoring the potential business impact of weak API controls.

Despite this, many organizations remain ill prepared. In a recent global API security report, only a small minority of organizations reported high confidence in their ability to detect or prevent API attacks. 

Industry research consistently shows that API security capabilities are lagging behind API adoption. According to Postman’s State of the API research, many organizations lack comprehensive visibility into their API ecosystems, particularly across legacy, internal, and partner-facing services. IBM security analysis further highlights APIs as a growing attack vector, often exploited due to fragmented controls and limited runtime monitoring. Analysts warn that most organizations overestimate their ability to detect and prevent API abuse, especially in hybrid environments where SOAP and REST APIs coexist and security controls are inconsistent.

These trends show that APIs are not just technical components. They are mission critical infrastructure that, if left insecure, can expose sensitive data, disrupt services, and erode customer trust. One class of vulnerability that contributes to these risks is broken function level authorization (BFLA). In OWASP API Security Top 10, broken function level authorization owasp describes situations where API endpoints lack correct functional authorization checks, allowing unauthorized users to perform sensitive actions. This issue can lead to privilege escalation, unauthorized data access, and business logic manipulation.

Organizations must view API security as a strategic priority and adopt stronger controls across development, test, and runtime environments. Understanding and addressing api broken function level authorization is a foundational step toward reducing API-related risk and protecting business operations.

What is Broken Function Level Authorization (BFLA)

Broken Function Level Authorization, commonly referred to as BFLA, is an API security vulnerability where an application fails to properly restrict access to sensitive functions or actions based on a user’s role or permissions.

In a secure system, function level authorization ensures that users can only perform actions they are explicitly allowed to perform. For example, an administrator may be allowed to create users, change system settings, or delete records, while a regular user may only be allowed to view or update their own data. When these checks are missing or incorrectly enforced at the API level, broken function level authorization BFLA occurs.

The broken function level authorization OWASP category appears as API5 in both the OWASP API Security Top 10 2019 and 2023 editions. It highlights a common pattern where APIs expose endpoints that execute privileged operations without validating whether the caller has the required role or authority. As a result, attackers or low privilege users can invoke high risk functions simply by calling the API directly.

This vulnerability often exists because APIs rely on assumptions made at the application or user interface layer. Developers may hide administrative features in the UI while forgetting that APIs remain accessible to anyone who can authenticate. Without explicit authorization checks on each function, the API becomes vulnerable to abuse.

An api broken function level authorization issue does not require advanced exploitation techniques. Attackers typically discover these weaknesses by enumerating API endpoints and testing whether restricted actions are accessible with lower privilege accounts. Because APIs are designed for automation and speed, successful exploitation can scale quickly and cause significant damage.

In simple terms, broken function level authorization example scenarios arise when an API trusts that a user should not call a function, instead of enforcing whether the user is allowed to call it. This makes BFLA one of the most dangerous and widely observed API security flaws in modern applications.

Why is Function Level Authorization Important in Security

Function level authorization protects the actions that run a business. It determines who can approve transactions, change configurations, trigger workflows, and access sensitive operational capabilities. For security leaders, this is not an abstract control. It is a safeguard around business authority.

APIs increasingly expose core business functions directly. Order approvals, refunds, user provisioning, pricing changes, data exports, and system administration are all executed through API calls. If function level authorization is weak or inconsistent, these actions can be invoked by users or systems that were never intended to have that level of access.

Consider a common enterprise scenario. A support user is allowed to view customer accounts through an internal dashboard. The same application also exposes an API endpoint that allows account status changes for operational staff. If the API does not enforce role checks at the function level, the support user can invoke that endpoint directly and suspend accounts, issue refunds, or modify customer data. No exploit is required. Only a valid login and an unprotected function.

In regulated industries, the impact is even greater. Financial services platforms often expose APIs for transaction approvals, limit changes, or report generation. Healthcare platforms expose APIs for patient data access, record updates, and administrative workflows. When function level authorization fails, organizations risk violations of separation of duties, compliance failures, and unauthorized actions that are difficult to trace back to intent.

Function level authorization is also critical for protecting automation. Modern enterprises rely on service accounts, integrations, and machine identities to operate at scale. These identities often have broad access. Without strict function level controls, a compromised token or misconfigured integration can perform high risk actions across systems in seconds.

From a business perspective, the damage caused by broken function level authorization is rarely limited to data exposure alone. It can result in fraudulent transactions, service outages, corrupted business processes, and loss of customer trust. These incidents often bypass traditional perimeter controls because the requests appear legitimate and originate from authenticated sources.

For CISOs, function level authorization is a control that aligns security with business risk. It ensures that authority is enforced where it matters most. At the point where APIs execute decisions, not just where data is stored. This is why failures in this area, commonly referred to as BFLA, remain one of the most impactful and persistent API security risks today.

Examples of Broken Function Level Authorization (BFLA)

Broken function level authorization becomes clear when looking at how real systems fail. In most cases, the vulnerability is not caused by complex attacks but by missing or inconsistent authorization checks on sensitive API functions.

A common broken function level authorization example appears in administrative APIs. An application may expose endpoints such as /api/admin/createUser or /api/admin/deleteUser. The user interface restricts access to these actions to administrators. However, if the API only verifies that the request is authenticated and does not validate the user’s role, any logged in user can invoke these functions directly. This allows privilege escalation without exploiting software flaws.

Another frequent scenario occurs in financial and commerce platforms. Consider an API that allows refunds or pricing overrides. Regular users may be permitted to view transactions, while finance teams are allowed to issue refunds. If the refund endpoint does not enforce function level authorization, a low privilege user can submit refund requests or alter pricing through direct API calls. This is a classic api broken function level authorization issue with immediate financial impact.

Enterprise SaaS platforms often expose operational functions through internal APIs. Examples include triggering background jobs, exporting full datasets, or disabling customer accounts. These functions are typically hidden from standard users in the application interface. When APIs rely on UI level controls instead of server side authorization, unauthorized users can execute these functions once they discover the endpoint. This pattern is widely cited in broken function level authorization OWASP guidance.

Service to service communication introduces another category of risk. Machine identities are often granted broad access for efficiency. If function level authorization is not enforced per role or per service, a compromised service token can invoke high risk operations across multiple systems. This turns a single credential leak into a large scale incident. It is a common form of broken function level authorization BFLA in modern microservice environments.

In all of these cases, the failure is the same. The API trusts that a caller should not perform an action instead of verifying that the caller is allowed to perform it. Because these requests are authenticated and structurally valid, they often evade traditional security monitoring. This makes BFLA both easy to exploit and difficult to detect without dedicated API security controls.

Risks and Impact of BFLA

Broken function level authorization introduces risk at the point where APIs execute business actions. The impact is often severe because the activity appears legitimate and bypasses traditional security controls.

1. BFLA bypasses traditional security defenses

Requests that exploit broken function level authorization are authenticated, well formed, and sent to valid API endpoints. There is no injection, payload manipulation, or protocol abuse. Because of this, most web application firewalls do not register BFLA exploitation as malicious traffic.

A WAF evaluates how a request looks. BFLA abuse is about what the request is allowed to do. Since the request conforms to expected API behavior, it passes through perimeter defenses without alerting. This creates a detection gap where high risk actions can be executed repeatedly without raising security signals.

Risk: Security controls allow unauthorized actions to pass as normal traffic.

Impact: Attacks remain invisible until business damage has already occurred.

2. Unauthorized execution of critical business functions

When function level authorization is broken, users can invoke actions outside their intended role. This includes administrative operations, financial approvals, data exports, and configuration changes. These are not edge case actions. They represent core business workflows.

Because APIs often centralize these functions, a single authorization failure can expose multiple critical operations.

Risk: Privilege boundaries collapse at the API layer.

Impact: Fraud, service disruption, and unauthorized system changes.

3. Abuse of legitimate identities and credentials

BFLA does not require account compromise or advanced exploitation. A valid user account or service token is sufficient. This makes the vulnerability attractive to insiders, compromised low privilege accounts, and attackers abusing leaked credentials.

Since activity is performed using legitimate identities, logs and audit trails often show authorized access, not malicious intent.

Risk: Legitimate credentials are used to perform unauthorized actions.

Impact: Incidents are harder to investigate, attribute, and contain.

4. Amplified impact in automated and API driven environments

Modern enterprises rely heavily on APIs for automation and service to service communication. These environments favor speed and scale, not manual oversight. When function level authorization is missing, automated abuse can execute high risk actions across systems in seconds.

This turns a single misconfiguration into a large-scale incident.

Risk: Automation accelerates exploitation.

Impact: Rapid, widespread damage before response teams can react.

5. Compliance and governance failures

Broken function level authorization violates least privilege and separation of duties. Unauthorized execution of sensitive functions can lead to audit failures, regulatory exposure, and loss of customer trust. In many cases, organizations discover these failures only after external review or customer impact.

Risk: Control gaps at the API layer go unnoticed.

Impact: Regulatory penalties, reputational damage, and long term trust erosion.

The defining danger of BFLA is not just what it allows attackers to do. It is the fact that it operates invisibly within normal traffic patterns. Without visibility into function level behavior at runtime, organizations remain exposed even when traditional defenses appear to be working.

Why does a BFLA vulnerability occur?

Broken function level authorization creates risk at a layer most organizations implicitly trust. The API layer executes business decisions. When authorization fails at this level, the impact extends beyond security into operations, revenue, and governance.

At its core, BFLA allows actions to be performed by identities that should not have that authority. These actions are executed through legitimate APIs, using valid credentials, and following expected request patterns. As a result, they blend into normal application traffic.

This has an important consequence. Most perimeter security controls, including web application firewalls, are not designed to detect or block BFLA exploitation. A WAF evaluates whether a request looks malicious. BFLA abuse does not look malicious. It looks like a valid API call performing a valid function. The problem is not how the request is formed, but who is allowed to execute it. This creates a visibility gap where high impact actions can occur without triggering alerts.

From a business perspective, this gap translates into several interconnected risks.

First, there is direct exposure of critical business functions. APIs commonly control operations such as transaction approvals, refunds, user provisioning, configuration changes, and data exports. When function level authorization is weak, these operations can be triggered by users, services, or integrations that were never intended to have that authority. The result can be financial loss, service disruption, or manipulation of core business processes.

Second, BFLA amplifies the impact of credential misuse. In many incidents, no exploit is required. A low privilege user account, a leaked API key, or a misconfigured service token is enough. Because activity is performed using legitimate identities, it is often indistinguishable from normal usage in logs and audit trails. This delays detection and complicates incident response.

Third, the risk scales with automation. Modern enterprises rely on APIs to operate at speed. When authorization controls fail, unauthorized actions can be executed repeatedly and automatically. What begins as a single authorization gap can quickly affect multiple systems, customers, or regions before teams become aware of the issue.

Finally, there are governance and compliance implications. Broken function level authorization undermines least privilege and separation of duties. Unauthorized execution of sensitive functions can lead to audit findings, regulatory exposure, and loss of customer confidence. These outcomes often surface after the fact, when remediation is more costly and trust has already been impacted.

The most serious aspect of bfla is not a single exploit or endpoint. It is the combination of high impact actions, legitimate traffic, and limited visibility. For security leaders, this makes BFLA a structural risk that cannot be addressed by perimeter defenses alone. It requires assurance that APIs enforce authorization consistently and that violations can be observed as they occur.

How to Identify BFLA Vulnerabilities

Identifying broken function level authorization requires deliberate security testing that focuses on how APIs enforce permissions at runtime. Unlike input validation flaws, BFLA cannot be reliably discovered through passive scanning or perimeter controls. It requires validating whether the right identities can execute the right functions.

1. Perform targeted function level authorization testing

At its core, BFLA testing verifies whether an authenticated user can invoke API functions beyond their intended role. This involves systematically exercising API endpoints using identities with different permission levels and observing whether restricted actions are incorrectly allowed.

For example, a tester may authenticate as a standard user and attempt to call endpoints intended for administrators, operators, or privileged services. If these actions succeed without proper role validation, a broken function level authorization vulnerability exists. This approach directly reflects how real world BFLA exploitation occurs.

2. Test for vertical authorization bypass

Vertical authorization bypass testing is central to identifying BFLA. It focuses on preventing privilege escalation between roles. Lower privilege users should never be able to perform actions reserved for higher privilege roles such as administrators or system operators.

Security teams should explicitly test whether role hierarchies are enforced at the API layer. This includes validating that role changes, group membership updates, or permission revocations are correctly reflected in API behavior. Failures in these tests often reveal BFLA issues that are not visible at the user interface level.

3. Validate role based access control behavior

Many organizations rely on custom role based access control implementations for APIs. These systems are complex and prone to misconfiguration, especially when users belong to multiple roles or when permissions change over time.

Testing should confirm that API permissions align with defined roles and scopes, and that users only inherit the permissions intended for their current role. Inconsistent or outdated role enforcement at the API layer is a common root cause of broken function level authorization (BFLA).

4. Use manual testing tools for focused validation

Manual testing tools such as Postman can be effective for identifying BFLA during targeted assessments. By authenticating as different users and replaying the same API calls, teams can quickly determine whether restricted functions are accessible across roles.

However, manual testing does not scale well in enterprise environments. The number of endpoints, roles, and permission combinations makes it difficult to achieve consistent coverage, increasing the likelihood that BFLA vulnerabilities remain undiscovered.

5. Understand the limitations of traditional security testing tools

Static and dynamic testing tools have limited effectiveness when it comes to function level authorization. SAST tools analyze source code but lack the context of runtime behavior and business logic. DAST tools operate against running applications but struggle with complex authorization flows and role based decision making.

As a result, many broken function level authorization vulnerabilities evade detection during standard testing cycles. This is particularly true in distributed, microservice based architectures where authorization logic is implemented inconsistently across services.

6. Account for scale and change in modern API environments

APIs evolve continuously. New endpoints are added, older versions persist, and undocumented or shadow APIs emerge. Each of these can introduce authorization gaps if not tested consistently.

Identifying BFLA requires continuous testing supported by full API visibility. Without an accurate inventory of endpoints, roles, and permissions, security teams cannot confidently assert that function level authorization is enforced everywhere it should be. In practice, identifying BFLA is less about finding malformed requests and more about validating intent. The question security teams must answer is simple but difficult at scale. Can this identity perform this function, and should it be allowed to do so.

Difference between Broken Function Level Authorization and Broken Object Level Authorization

Broken function level authorization and broken object level authorization are often discussed together, but they represent two distinct classes of API authorization failure. Both involve authenticated users performing actions they should not be allowed to perform. 

The difference lies in what is being improperly authorized. BFLA concerns whether a user can execute a function, while BOLA concerns whether a user can access a specific object. 

Understanding this distinction is critical for designing effective API security controls.

How to Monitor and Detect BFLA Exploits in Runtime

Detecting broken function level authorization exploits at runtime requires visibility into how APIs are actually used, not just how they are designed. Because BFLA abuse relies on legitimate requests and valid credentials, detection must focus on behavior, context, and intent rather than signatures or payload patterns.

1. Monitor execution of privileged functions

The first step in runtime detection is identifying which API functions perform sensitive or high impact actions. These include administrative operations, financial actions, configuration changes, data exports, and workflow triggers. Once identified, security teams should monitor how often these functions are invoked and by which identities.

For example, if an API endpoint that suspends user accounts is suddenly invoked by standard user accounts or service tokens that historically never performed this action, it signals a potential BFLA exploit. The request itself may be valid, but the actor executing the function is not appropriate.

2. Correlate user roles with executed actions

Runtime monitoring should continuously validate that the role or permission associated with an identity aligns with the function being executed. This requires mapping authentication tokens, roles, and scopes to API calls in real time.

Consider a scenario where a customer support role is allowed to view account information but not modify account status. If runtime telemetry shows this role successfully calling an endpoint that changes account state, it indicates a breakdown in function level authorization. This type of correlation is essential for detecting BFLAexploitation as it occurs.

3. Detect abnormal privilege usage patterns

BFLA exploits often manifest as changes in behavior rather than spikes in traffic. Monitoring should focus on deviations from normal privilege usage.

For example, a user account that has never invoked administrative APIs suddenly begins triggering configuration changes across multiple services. Similarly, a service account designed for read only access begins issuing write or delete operations. These shifts in functional behavior are strong indicators of broken function level authorization (BFLA) being abused.

4. Track high risk actions across environments

APIs are frequently shared across production, staging, and internal environments. Runtime monitoring should ensure that sensitive functions are not being exercised unexpectedly in any environment.

For instance, an internal testing API that allows bulk data deletion may remain accessible in production. If runtime monitoring detects this function being executed outside approved workflows, it reveals both an exposure and an active exploitation path.

5. Combine runtime signals with business context

Effective detection of BFLA requires business context. Security teams must understand which functions are critical, who should use them, and under what conditions.

As an example, issuing refunds may be legitimate during business hours by finance roles, but suspicious if executed at scale by non finance users or automated scripts. Runtime detection systems that incorporate business context can flag these actions before significant damage occurs.

Why traditional controls fall short at runtime

Web application firewalls and network based monitoring tools are not designed to evaluate function level authorization. They cannot determine whether an identity should be allowed to perform a specific action. As a result, BFLA exploitation remains invisible to most traditional runtime defenses.

Detecting api broken function level authorization in runtime requires API aware monitoring that understands roles, permissions, and function intent. Without this visibility, organizations may unknowingly allow unauthorized actions to persist for long periods.

Strategies & Best Practices for preventing BFLA attacks

Broken function level authorization is not a runtime failure. It is a design flaw. It is introduced when APIs are built without clear, enforceable authorization boundaries at the function level. As a result, the most effective way to prevent BFLA attacks is to address them early, before APIs reach production.

Organizations that attempt to manage BFLA primarily in production face an uphill battle. Authorization abuse looks like legitimate traffic, making it difficult to detect or block after deployment. Preventing these issues at the source is both more reliable and significantly less disruptive to the business.

1. Continuously discover APIs across the development lifecycle

Preventing BFLA begins with visibility. Modern enterprises operate hundreds or thousands of APIs across environments, teams, and versions. APIs are frequently added, modified, or deprecated, often without centralized oversight. Any endpoint that escapes visibility is unlikely to receive consistent authorization review.

Continuous API discovery ensures that every endpoint is identified as it is introduced. This allows security teams to assess function level authorization early and ensure that sensitive actions are not exposed unintentionally. Without accurate and up to date API inventories, enforcing access controls becomes reactive and incomplete.

2. Continuously test APIs for authorization failures

Authorization issues rarely surface through functional testing alone. An API can work exactly as intended and still allow unauthorized users to perform restricted actions. Preventing BFLA requires explicit testing of access controls, not just expected behavior.

By embedding authorization testing into development and pre production workflows, teams can validate whether roles, permissions, and scopes are enforced correctly at the function level. This includes testing for privilege escalation, misuse of administrative functions, and improper role enforcement. Catching these failures before deployment avoids costly remediation and reduces the likelihood of incidents that are difficult to investigate later.

3. Prioritize access controls on high impact functions

Not all API endpoints carry the same level of risk. Functions that perform administrative actions, financial operations, data exports, or system configuration changes have a disproportionate impact when misused.

Preventing BFLA requires identifying these high impact functions during design and applying stricter authorization controls from the outset. By prioritizing access control decisions where the business impact is highest, organizations reduce both exposure and noise. This focus ensures that security effort is aligned with real business risk rather than spread thin across low impact endpoints.

4. Design APIs to be secure by default

A common failure pattern is assuming that production controls will compensate for weak authorization logic. In practice, perimeter defenses cannot determine whether a caller should be allowed to execute a specific function. They can only assess whether a request looks suspicious.

Preventing BFLA means designing APIs that enforce authority by default. When authorization is built into the API contract and validated continuously during development, production defenses become an additional layer rather than the primary line of protection.

Organizations that adopt this approach reduce reliance on reactive controls, avoid costly late stage fixes, and ship APIs that are resilient by design.

How Levo prevents BFLA attacks

Preventing broken function level authorization requires more than policy definitions or manual reviews. It requires continuous validation that APIs enforce authorization correctly as they evolve. Levo addresses BFLA by embedding authorization assurance directly into how APIs are discovered, understood, and tested before they reach production.

Levo begins with comprehensive API discovery. By analyzing real traffic across environments, Levo builds an accurate inventory of all APIs, including internal, external, and undocumented endpoints. This visibility is critical for BFLA prevention. Authorization flaws often appear in APIs that are poorly documented, newly introduced, or assumed to be internal. By discovering APIs automatically, Levo ensures that no function escapes review.

As part of this discovery process, Levo maps authentication and authorization context from live traffic. JWTs, roles, and scopes are analyzed to build a detailed and accurate view of permissions across the API ecosystem. This allows Levo to understand who should be allowed to perform which actions, even when formal documentation is incomplete or outdated. This role and scope mapping forms the foundation for preventing broken function level authorization bfla.

Once roles and permissions are established, Levo automates authorization testing at scale. Instead of relying on manual test cases or static assumptions, Levo systematically validates whether APIs enforce function level authorization correctly. This includes testing vertical authorization boundaries to ensure low privilege users cannot invoke high privilege functions, as well as validating access controls across thousands of endpoints and OAuth scopes.

Levo’s testing approach is designed to reflect real world usage. It validates how APIs behave under realistic authorization scenarios rather than theoretical models. This allows teams to detect BFLA conditions early, before APIs are exposed to production traffic.

When authorization issues are identified, Levo provides precise and actionable findings. Each issue includes the exact request payload that triggered the vulnerability, mapped directly to the affected API and service owner. This shortens remediation cycles and helps development teams fix authorization logic at the source rather than applying temporary workarounds.

By combining continuous discovery, deep authorization context, and automated testing, Levo prevents api broken function level authorization issues from being introduced in the first place. This allows organizations to ship APIs that enforce authority by design, reducing reliance on runtime defenses and lowering the risk of high impact authorization failures.

How Levo detects and block BFLA attacks in runtime 

Broken function level authorization exploits cannot be reliably stopped using traditional perimeter controls. They use valid credentials, well formed requests, and legitimate API functions. Detecting and blocking them in runtime requires deep API context, execution awareness, and precision enforcement. This is where Levo fundamentally differs from legacy WAFs and API gateways.

1. Detecting BFLA using runtime execution context

Levo detects BFLA exploits by observing API behavior exactly where execution occurs. Using kernel level instrumentation, Levo captures API calls before encryption, proxies, or gateways abstract away critical context. This includes north south traffic, east west microservice calls, and internal service to service communication. Because Levo ties each API call to the executing user, token, role, and data flow, it can determine whether an identity is invoking a function it should not be allowed to execute. For example, if a low privilege user or service token successfully triggers an administrative API function, Levo identifies this as a broken function level authorization violation in real time. Traditional tools cannot make this determination because they lack role and function awareness.

Levo continuously discovers and monitors every API across the environment. Internal, external, partner, shadow, and newly deployed APIs are all covered automatically. This eliminates the most common detection gap for BFLA attacks. The API that was never onboarded or documented. Detection is behavioral and version aware. Instead of relying on static signatures or regex rules, Levo learns normal usage patterns for each API function and flags deviations that indicate misuse or privilege escalation. This allows it to detect low volume, low noise BFLA exploits that evade threshold based and signature based systems.

2. Blocking BFLA attacks with precision and confidence

Detection alone is not enough. Blocking BFLA attacks requires confidence that the action is truly unauthorized, without disrupting legitimate users or business workflows.

Levo’s runtime protection enforces blocking decisions using the same execution context used for detection. Because enforcement is grounded in real API behavior, user identity, and function intent, Levo can block only malicious calls while allowing legitimate traffic to flow uninterrupted. Unlike legacy WAFs, Levo does not rely on coarse rules or traffic patterns. It applies enforcement at the API and function level, allowing organizations to block unauthorized function execution without risking false positives that break customer experiences. This is why many organizations run WAFs in monitoring mode, but confidently run Levo in blocking mode.

Levo supports granular enforcement policies. Teams can block unauthorized function calls in production, log them in staging, or tune enforcement per API and environment. This ensures that protection aligns with business risk tolerance and deployment maturity.

3. Closing the loop from runtime protection to root cause fixes

When Levo blocks a BFLA exploit, it does not stop at enforcement. Each incident is traced back to the exact API, service, and missing authorization check that enabled the exploit. Through developer facing automation, Levo provides actionable remediation guidance, often including code level context, allowing teams to fix the root cause quickly .

Runtime signals are also fed back into pre production testing. Exploits observed in production can be converted into new test cases, strengthening future releases and preventing regression. This creates a continuous improvement loop where detection, blocking, and prevention reinforce each other.

Why Levo is uniquely positioned to stop BFLA attacks

Levo is the only platform that combines pre encryption runtime visibility, continuous API discovery, behavioral detection, and precise function level enforcement in a single system. Legacy tools operate without execution context and cannot reason about authorization intent. As a result, they either miss BFLA attacks or block too aggressively and disrupt the business.

By understanding who executed what function, against which API, and why it matters, Levo delivers real time detection and blocking of bfla attacks without sacrificing performance, compliance, or developer velocity.

The way ahead: Implementing API Security to prevent BFLA

Broken function level authorization is not an isolated issue. It is a symptom of how APIs are designed, deployed, and governed across the enterprise. As APIs become the primary interface to business logic, preventing BFLA requires a comprehensive API security approach rather than point solutions or reactive controls.

Effective API security starts with visibility. Organizations must know which APIs exist, how they are used, and which business functions they expose. Without continuous discovery, authorization gaps will inevitably appear as teams ship faster, services multiply, and environments evolve. Visibility is the foundation on which all other controls depend.

From there, security must move earlier in the lifecycle. Authorization logic cannot be validated reliably in production alone. Enterprises need continuous pre production security testing that focuses on access controls, privilege boundaries, and business logic abuse. This ensures that function level authorization is enforced by design, not assumed by convention or user interface restrictions.

Runtime protection remains essential, but its role changes. Instead of compensating for weak design, runtime controls should validate behavior, detect misuse, and stop active exploitation with precision. To do this effectively, runtime security must understand APIs at the function level, correlate identity and intent, and operate with minimal noise and latency.

Finally, governance and feedback loops are critical. Security signals from runtime must inform development. Vulnerabilities discovered during testing must be traceable to owners and remediated quickly. API security must become a continuous system, not a series of disconnected checks.

Levo brings these capabilities together in a single platform. Through continuous API discovery, Levo provides complete visibility across internal, external, partner, and shadow APIs. With automated authorization testing, it helps teams prevent BFLA and other API vulnerabilities before they reach production. Through runtime detection and protection, it identifies and blocks API specific attacks that traditional tools cannot see. And by closing the loop between runtime signals and pre production testing, Levo helps organizations fix root causes, not just symptoms.

For enterprises, this means more than preventing broken function level authorization. It means building APIs that are secure by default, resilient in production, and aligned with business risk. As APIs continue to define how digital businesses operate, adopting a unified API security strategy is no longer optional. It is the path forward to preventing BFLA and the many other risks that follow when APIs are left ungoverned.