Kingdom: Input Validation and Representation

Input validation and representation problems ares caused by metacharacters, alternate encodings and numeric representations. Security problems result from trusting input. The issues include: "Buffer Overflows," "Cross-Site Scripting" attacks, "SQL Injection," and many others.

Connection String Parameter Pollution

Abstract
Concatenating unvalidated input into a database connection may allow an attacker to override the value of a request parameter. An attacker may be able to override existing parameter values, inject a new parameter or exploit variables out of a direct reach.
Explanation
Connection String Parameter Pollution (CSPP) attacks consist of injecting connection string parameters into other existing parameters. This vulnerability is similar to vulnerabilities, and perhaps more well known, within HTTP environments where parameter pollution can also occur. However, it also can apply in other places such as database connection strings. If an application does not properly sanitize the user input, a malicious user may compromise the logic of the application to perform attacks from stealing credentials, to retrieving the entire database. By submitting additional parameters to an application, and if these parameters have the same name as an existing parameter, the database connection may react in one of the following ways:

It may only take the data from the first parameter
It may take the data from the last parameter
It may take the data from all parameters and concatenate them together

This may be dependent on the driver used, the database type, or even how APIs are used.

Example 1: The following code uses input from an HTTP request to connect to a database:


...
string password = Request.Form["db_pass"]; //gets POST parameter 'db_pass'
SqlConnection DBconn = new SqlConnection("Data Source = myDataSource; Initial Catalog = db; User ID = myUsername; Password = " + password + ";");
...


In this example, the programmer has not considered that an attacker could provide a db_pass parameter such as:
"xxx; Integrated Security = true" then connection string becomes:

"Data Source = myDataSource; Initial Catalog = db; User ID = myUsername; Password = xxx; Integrated Security = true; "

This will make the application connect to the database using the operating system account under which the application is running to bypass normal authentication. This would mean the attacker could connect to the database without a valid password and perform queries against the database directly.
References
[1] Chema Alonso, Manuel Fernandez, Alejandro Martin and Antonio Guzmán Connection String Parameter Pollution Attacks
[2] Eric P. Maurice A New Threat To Web Applications: Connection String Parameter Pollution (CSPP)
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[30] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 020
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.connection_string_parameter_pollution
Abstract
Concatenating unvalidated input into a database connection may allow an attacker to override the value of a request parameter. An attacker might be able to override existing parameter values, inject a new parameter, or exploit variables that are out of direct reach.
Explanation
Connection String Parameter Pollution (CSPP) attacks consist of injecting connection string parameters into other existing parameters. This vulnerability is similar to vulnerabilities, and perhaps more well known, within HTTP environments where parameter pollution can also occur. However, it also can apply in other places such as database connection strings. If an application does not properly sanitize the user input, a malicious user may compromise the logic of the application to perform attacks from stealing credentials, to retrieving the entire database. By submitting additional parameters that have the same name as an existing parameter to an application, the database might react in one of the following ways:

It might only take the data from the first parameter
It might take the data from the last parameter
It might take the data from all parameters and concatenate them together

This is dependent on the driver used, the database type, or even how APIs are used.


Example 1: The following code uses input from an HTTP request to connect to a database:


...
password := request.FormValue("db_pass")
db, err := sql.Open("mysql", "user:" + password + "@/dbname")
...


In this example, the programmer has not considered that an attacker could provide a db_pass parameter such as:
"xxx@/attackerdb?foo=" then connection string becomes:

"user:xxx@/attackerdb?foo=/dbname"

This will make the application connect to an attacker controller database enabling him to control which data is return to the application.
References
[1] Chema Alonso, Manuel Fernandez, Alejandro Martin and Antonio Guzmán Connection String Parameter Pollution Attacks
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 020
[30] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.golang.connection_string_parameter_pollution
Abstract
Concatenating unvalidated input into a database connection may allow an attacker to override the value of a request parameter. An attacker may be able to override existing parameter values, inject a new parameter, or exploit variables that are out of direct reach.
Explanation
Connection String Parameter Pollution (CSPP) attacks consist of injecting connection string parameters into other existing parameters. This vulnerability is similar to vulnerabilities, and perhaps more well known, within HTTP environments where parameter pollution can also occur. However, it also can apply in other places such as database connection strings. If an application does not properly sanitize the user input, a malicious user may compromise the logic of the application to perform attacks from stealing credentials, to retrieving the entire database. By submitting additional parameters to an application, and if these parameters have the same name as an existing parameter, the database connection may react in one of the following ways:

It may only take the data from the first parameter
It may take the data from the last parameter
It may take the data from all parameters and concatenate them together

This may be dependent on the driver used, the database type, or even how APIs are used.

Example 1: The following code uses input from an HTTP request to connect to a database:


username = req.field('username')
password = req.field('password')
...
client = MongoClient('mongodb://%s:%s@aMongoDBInstance.com/?ssl=true' % (username, password))
...


In this example, the programmer has not considered that an attacker could provide a password parameter such as:
"myPassword@aMongoDBInstance.com/?ssl=false&" then the connection string becomes (assuming a username "scott"):

"mongodb://scott:myPassword@aMongoDBInstance.com/?ssl=false&@aMongoDBInstance.com/?ssl=true"

This will cause "@aMongoDBInstance.com/?ssl=true" to be treated as an additional invalid argument, effectively ignoring "ssl=true" and connecting to the database with no encryption.
References
[1] Chema Alonso, Manuel Fernandez, Alejandro Martin and Antonio Guzmán Connection String Parameter Pollution Attacks
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 020
[30] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.connection_string_parameter_pollution
Abstract
Concatenating unvalidated input into a database connection can allow an attacker to override the value of a request parameter. An attacker may be able to override existing parameter values, inject a new parameter or exploit variables out of a direct reach.
Explanation
Connection String Parameter Pollution (CSPP) attacks consist of injecting connection string parameters into other existing parameters. This vulnerability is similar to vulnerabilities, and perhaps more well known, within HTTP environments where parameter pollution can also occur. However, it also can apply in other places such as database connection strings. If an application does not properly sanitize the user input, a malicious user may compromise the logic of the application to perform attacks from stealing credentials, to retrieving the entire database. By submitting additional parameters to an application, and if these parameters have the same name as an existing parameter, the database connection may react in one of the following ways:

It may only take the data from the first parameter
It may take the data from the last parameter
It may take the data from all parameters and concatenate them together

This may be dependent on the driver used, the database type, or even how APIs are used.

Example 1: The following code uses input from an HTTP request to connect to a database:


hostname = req.params['host'] #gets POST parameter 'host'
...
conn = PG::Connection.new("connect_timeout=20 dbname=app_development user=#{user} password=#{password} host=#{hostname}")
...


In this example, the programmer has not considered that an attacker could provide a host parameter such as:
"myevilsite.com%20port%3D4444%20sslmode%3Ddisable" then connection string becomes (assuming a username "scott" and password "5up3RS3kR3t"):

"dbname=app_development user=scott password=5up3RS3kR3t host=myevilsite.com port=4444 sslmode=disable"

This will perform a lookup for "myevilsite.com" and connect to this on port 4444, disabling SSL. This would mean the attacker could steal the credentials of the user "scott" and then use this to either perform a man-in-the-middle attack between their machine and the real database, or just login to the real database and perform queries against the database directly.
References
[1] Chema Alonso, Manuel Fernandez, Alejandro Martin and Antonio Guzmán Connection String Parameter Pollution Attacks
[2] Eric P. Maurice A New Threat To Web Applications: Connection String Parameter Pollution (CSPP)
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[30] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 020
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.ruby.connection_string_parameter_pollution