The efficacy of access control largely depends on how system administrators (sysadmins) resolve access-denied issues. A correct resolution should only permit the expected access, while maintaining the protection against illegal access. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that correct resolutions are occasional - sysadmins often grant too much access (known as security misconfigurations) to allow the denied access, posing severe security risks. This paper presents a quantitative study on real-world practices of resolving access-denied issues, with a particular focus on how and why security misconfigurations are introduced during problem solving. We characterize the real-world security misconfigurations introduced in the field, and show that many of these misconfigurations were the results of trial-and-error practices commonly adopted by sysadmins to work around access denials. We argue that the lack of adequate feedback information is one fundamental reason that prevents sysadmins from developing precise understanding and thus induces trial and error. Our study on access-denied messages shows that many of today's software systems miss the opportunities for providing adequate feedback information, imposing unnecessary obstacles to correct resolutions.