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.

191 items found
Weaknesses

Header Manipulation

Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


...
author = request->get_form_field( 'author' ).
response->set_cookie( name = 'author' value = author ).
...


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.abap.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation, or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently in an HTTP request.


2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n) characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example 1: The following code sets an HTTP header whose name and value could be controlled by an attacker:


@HttpGet
global static void doGet() {
    ...
    Map<String, String> params = ApexPages.currentPage().getParameters();
    
    RestResponse res = RestContext.response;
    res.addHeader(params.get('name'), params.get('value'));
    ...
}


Assuming a name/value pair consisting of author and Jane Smith, the HTTP response including this header might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
author:Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the header is formed from unvalidated user input, an attacker might submit a malicious name/value pair, such as HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...foo and bar, then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
foo:bar


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker can make a single request to a vulnerable server that causes the server to create two responses, the second of which might be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker might leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker might provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: After attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker might cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks such as Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers might change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.apex.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers and frameworks will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Microsoft's .NET framework will convert CR, LF, and NULL characters to %0d, %0a and %00 when they are sent to the HttpResponse.AddHeader() method. If you are using the latest .NET framework that prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application might not be vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


protected System.Web.UI.WebControls.TextBox Author;
...
string author = Author.Text;
Cookie cookie = new Cookie("author", author);
...


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for Author.Text does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.dotnet.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement or page hijacking attacks.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated for malicious characters.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTML form and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response. 


...
EXEC CICS
  WEB READ
  FORMFIELD(NAME)
  VALUE(AUTHOR)
  ...
END-EXEC.

EXEC CICS
  WEB WRITE 
  HTTPHEADER(COOKIE)
  VALUE(AUTHOR)
  ...
END-EXEC.
...


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.cobol.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently a web request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from a web form and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response. 


	<cfcookie name = "author"
	value = "#Form.author#"
	expires = "NOW">


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1/1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the sever to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the sever. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response an executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] Amit Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] Diabolic Crab HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.cfml.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without validation.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the 'content-type' from an HTTP request and sets it in a header of an new HTTP request.


  final server = await HttpServer.bind('localhost', 18081);
  server.listen((request) async {
    final headers = request.headers;
    final contentType = headers.value('content-type');
    final client = HttpClient();
    final clientRequest = await client.getUrl(Uri.parse('https://example.com'));
    clientRequest.headers.add('Content-Type', contentType as Object);
  });


Because the value of the 'Content-Type' header is formed of unvalidated user input, it can be manipulated by malicious actors to exploit vulnerabilities, execute code injection attacks, expose sensitive data, enable malicious file execution, or trigger denial of service situations, posing significant risks to the application's security and stability.
desc.dataflow.dart.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation, or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.


Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


...
author := request.FormValue("AUTHOR_PARAM")
cookie := http.Cookie{
  Name:       "author",
  Value:      author,
  Domain:     "www.example.com",
}
http.SetCookie(w, &cookie)
...


The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker can make a single request to a vulnerable server that causes the server to create two responses, the second of which can be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker might leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker might provide especially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance is affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: After attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker might cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers can change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
desc.dataflow.golang.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


String author = request.getParameter(AUTHOR_PARAM);
...
Cookie cookie = new Cookie("author", author);
     cookie.setMaxAge(cookieExpiration);
     response.addCookie(cookie);


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.java.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


author = form.author.value;
...
document.cookie = "author=" + author + ";expires="+cookieExpiration;
...


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.


Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like cross-site request forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.javascript.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.


2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n) characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment assumes name and value may be controlled by an attacker. The code sets an HTTP header whose name and value may be controlled by an attacker:


...
NSURLSessionConfiguration * config = [[NSURLSessionConfiguration alloc] init];
NSMutableDictionary *dict = @{};
[dict setObject:value forKey:name];
[config setHTTPAdditionalHeaders:dict];
...


Assuming a name/value pair consisting of author and Jane Smith, the HTTP response including this header might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
author:Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the header is formed of unvalidated user input, an attacker may submit a malicious name/value pair, such as HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...foo and bar, then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
foo:bar


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.objc.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of PHP will generate a warning and stop header creation when new lines are passed to the header() function. If your version of PHP prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the location from an HTTP request and sets it in the header location field of an HTTP response.


<?php
    $location = $_GET['some_location'];
    ...
    header("location: $location");
?>


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "index.html", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
location: index.html
...


However, because the value of the location is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for some_location does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "index.html\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
location: index.html

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.php.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


...
-- Assume QUERY_STRING looks like AUTHOR_PARAM=Name
author := SUBSTR(OWA_UTIL.get_cgi_env('QUERY_STRING'), 14);
OWA_UTIL.mime_header('text/html', false);
OWA_COOKE.send('author', author);
OWA_UTIL.http_header_close;
...


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.sql.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the location from an HTTP request and sets it in a the header its location field of an HTTP response.


    location = req.field('some_location')
    ...
    response.addHeader("location",location)


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "index.html", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
location: index.html
...


However, because the value of the location is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for some_location does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "index.html\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
location: index.html

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide especially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.python.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and uses this in a get request to another part of the site.


author = req.params[AUTHOR_PARAM]
http = Net::HTTP.new(URI("http://www.mysite.com"))
http.post('/index.php', "author=#{author}")


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith" is submitted in the request, the HTTP response might take the following form:


POST /index.php HTTP/1.1
Host: www.mysite.com
author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the URL is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nPOST /index.php HTTP/1.1\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


POST /index.php HTTP/1.1
Host: www.mysite.com
author=Wiley Hacker

POST /index.php HTTP/1.1
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
desc.dataflow.ruby.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, Play Framework will throw an exception if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.scala.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.


2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n) characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment assumes name and value may be controlled by an attacker. The code sets an HTTP header whose name and value may be controlled by an attacker:


...
var headers = []
headers[name] = value
let config = NSURLSessionConfiguration.backgroundSessionConfigurationWithIdentifier("com.acme")
config.HTTPAdditionalHeaders = headers
...


Assuming a name/value pair consisting of author and Jane Smith, the HTTP response including this header might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
author:Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the header is formed of unvalidated user input, an attacker may submit a malicious name/value pair, such as HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...foo and bar, then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
foo:bar


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.swift.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers, however, servers that support classic ASP often do not have that protection mechanism.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


...
author = Request.Form(AUTHOR_PARAM)
Response.Cookies("author") = author
Response.Cookies("author").Expires = cookieExpiration
...


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.vb.header_manipulation

Header Manipulation: Cookies

Abstract
Including unvalidated data in Cookies can lead to HTTP Response header manipulation and enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP cookie sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, cookie manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP cookie.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Being an HTTP Response header, Cookie manipulation attacks can also lead to other types of attacks like:

HTTP Response Splitting:
One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


...
author = request->get_form_field( 'author' ).
response->set_cookie( name = 'author' value = author ).
...


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] 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
[34] 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.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.abap.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in Cookies can lead to HTTP Response header manipulation and enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation, or open redirect.
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently in an HTTP request.



2. The data is included in an HTTP cookie sent to a web user without being validated.



As with many software security vulnerabilities, cookie manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP cookie.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks such as cross-site request forgery, attackers might change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Being an HTTP Response header, Cookie manipulation attacks can also lead to other types of attacks such as:

HTTP Response Splitting:
One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example 1: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


...
Cookie cookie = new Cookie('author', author, '/', -1, false);
ApexPages.currentPage().setCookies(new Cookie[] {cookie});
...


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for author does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker can make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] 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
[34] 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.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.apex.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in Cookies can lead to HTTP Response header manipulation and enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP cookie sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, cookie manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP cookie.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Being an HTTP Response header, cookie manipulation attacks can also lead to other types of attacks like:

HTTP Response Splitting:
One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


protected System.Web.UI.WebControls.TextBox Author;
...
string author = Author.Text;
Cookie cookie = new Cookie("author", author);
...


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] 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
[34] 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.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.dotnet.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in Cookies can lead to HTTP Response header manipulation and enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP cookie sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, cookie manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP cookie.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Being an HTTP Response header, Cookie manipulation attacks can also lead to other types of attacks like:

HTTP Response Splitting:
One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response. 


  <cfcookie name = "author"
  value = "#Form.author#"
  expires = "NOW">


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] Amit Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] Diabolic Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] 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
[34] 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.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.cfml.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in Cookies can lead to HTTP Response header manipulation and enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation, or open redirect.
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP cookie sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, cookie manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP cookie.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers can change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Being an HTTP Response header, cookie manipulation attacks can also lead to other types of attacks like:

HTTP Response Splitting:
One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n) characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


...
author := request.FormValue("AUTHOR_PARAM")
cookie := http.Cookie{
  Name:       "author",
  Value:      author,
  Domain:     "www.example.com",
}
http.SetCookie(w, &cookie)
...


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response only maintains this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response is split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker can make a single request to a vulnerable server that causes the server to create two responses, the second of which can be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker might leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker might provide especially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance is affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: After attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a variety of malicious content they can provide to users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, an attacker can leverage the same root vulnerability to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker can cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[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 - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] 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
[32] 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.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[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 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 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 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.golang.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in Cookies can lead to HTTP Response header manipulation and enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP cookie sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, cookie manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP cookie.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Being an HTTP Response header, cookie manipulation attacks can also lead to other types of attacks like:

HTTP Response Splitting:
One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example 1: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


String author = request.getParameter(AUTHOR_PARAM);
...
Cookie cookie = new Cookie("author", author);
     cookie.setMaxAge(cookieExpiration);
     response.addCookie(cookie);


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Some think that in the mobile world, classic web application vulnerabilities, such as header and cookie manipulation, do not make sense -- why would the user attack themself? However, keep in mind that the essence of mobile platforms is applications that are downloaded from various sources and run alongside each other on the same device. The likelihood of running a piece of malware next to a banking application is high, which necessitates expanding the attack surface of mobile applications to include inter-process communication.

Example 2: The following code adapts Example 1 to the Android platform.


...
	CookieManager webCookieManager = CookieManager.getInstance();
        String author = this.getIntent().getExtras().getString(AUTHOR_PARAM);
	String setCookie = "author=" + author + "; max-age=" + cookieExpiration;
        webCookieManager.setCookie(url, setCookie);

...
Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] 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
[34] 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.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.java.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in Cookies can lead to HTTP Response header manipulation and enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP cookie sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, cookie manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP cookie.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like cross-site request forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Being an HTTP Response header, Cookie manipulation attacks can also lead to other types of attacks like:

HTTP Response Splitting:
One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


author = form.author.value;
...
document.cookie = "author=" + author + ";expires="+cookieExpiration;
...


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker can make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] 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
[34] 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.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.javascript.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in Cookies can lead to HTTP Response header manipulation and enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP cookie sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, cookie manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP cookie.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Being an HTTP Response header, Cookie manipulation attacks can also lead to other types of attacks like:

HTTP Response Splitting:
One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


<?php
    $author = $_GET['AUTHOR_PARAM'];
    ...
    header("author: $author");
?>


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] 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
[34] 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.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.php.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the location from an HTTP request and sets it in a the header its location field of an HTTP response.


    location = req.field('some_location')
    ...
    response.addHeader("location",location)


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "index.html", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
location: index.html
...


However, because the value of the location is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for some_location does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "index.html\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
location: index.html

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide especially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] 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
[34] 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.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.python.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in Cookies can lead to HTTP Response header manipulation and enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP cookie sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, cookie manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP cookie.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Being an HTTP Response header, cookie manipulation attacks can also lead to other types of attacks like:

HTTP Response Splitting:
One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] 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
[34] 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.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.scala.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in Cookies can lead to HTTP Response header manipulation and enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP cookie sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, cookie manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP cookie.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Being an HTTP Response header, Cookie manipulation attacks can also lead to other types of attacks like:

HTTP Response Splitting:
One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


...
author = Request.Form(AUTHOR_PARAM)
Response.Cookies("author") = author
Response.Cookies("author").Expires = cookieExpiration
...


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] 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
[34] 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.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.vb.header_manipulation_cookies

Header Manipulation: IMAP

Abstract
The target application unsafely constructs and saves an email over the Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP), potentially allowing for an injection attack.
Explanation
The Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) is used to retreive emails from an authenticated mailbox. An extension of this protocol allows an application to construct emails and upload them to an authenticated mailbox (e.g. the Drafts folder), and later send them using the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP). In this scenario, if unvalidated user input is passed to certain IMAP functions, it may be possible to inject information into email headers. An attacker can use this vulnerability to inject additional recipients for an email (via the addition of Carriage-Return and Line-Feed (CRLF) characters), allowing the target application to be used to send spam emails that cannot easily be traced back to the attacker.
References
[1] IMAPProtocol (JavaMail API Documentation) Carnegie Mellon University
[2] Email Header Injection Security Cake Solutions
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 93
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dynamic.xtended_preview.header_manipulation_imap

Header Manipulation: SMTP

Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an SMTP header can enable attackers to add arbitrary headers, such as CC or BCC that they can use to leak the mail contents to themselves or use the mail server as a spam bot.
Explanation
SMTP Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters an application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request in a web application.

2. The data is included in an SMTP header sent to a mail server without validation.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, SMTP Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an SMTP header.

One of the most common SMTP Header Manipulation attacks is to distribute spam emails. If an application contains a vulnerable "Contact us" form that allows setting the subject and the body of the email, an attacker can set any arbitrary content and inject a CC header with a list of email addresses to spam anonymously because the email is sent from the victim's server.

Example: The following code segment reads the subject and body of a "Contact us" form:


    func handler(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
        subject := r.FormValue("subject")
        body := r.FormValue("body")
        auth := smtp.PlainAuth("identity", "user@example.com", "password", "mail.example.com")
        to := []string{"recipient@example.net"}
        msg := []byte("To: " + recipient1 + "\r\n" + subject + "\r\n" + body + "\r\n")
        err := smtp.SendMail("mail.example.com:25", auth, "sender@example.org", to, msg)
        if err != nil {
            log.Fatal(err)
        }
    }


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Page not working" is submitted in the request, the SMTP headers might take the following form:


  ...
  subject: [Contact us query] Page not working
  ...


However, because the value of the header is constructed from unvalidated user input the response only maintains this form if the value submitted for subject does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Congratulations!! You won the lottery!!!\r\ncc:victim1@mail.com,victim2@mail.com ...", then the SMTP headers would be of the following form:


  ...
  subject: [Contact us query] Congratulations!! You won the lottery
  cc: victim1@mail.com,victim2@mail.com
  ...


This effectively enables an attacker to craft spam messages or to send anonymous emails amongst other attacks.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 93
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] 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
[33] 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
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.golang.header_manipulation_smtp
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an SMTP header can enable attackers to add arbitrary headers, such as CC or BCC that they can use to leak the mail contents to themselves or use the mail server as a spam bot.
Explanation
SMTP Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters an application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request in a web application.

2. The data is included in an SMTP header sent to a mail server without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, SMTP Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an SMTP header.

One of the most common SMTP Header Manipulation attacks is used for distributing spam emails. If an application contains a vulnerable "Contact us" form that allows setting the subject and the body of the email, an attacker will be able to set any arbitrary content and inject a CC header with a list of email addresses to spam anonymously since the email will be sent from the victim server.

Example: The following code segment reads the subject and body of a "Contact us" form:


  String subject = request.getParameter("subject");
  String body = request.getParameter("body");
  MimeMessage message = new MimeMessage(session);
  message.setFrom(new InternetAddress("webform@acme.com"));
  message.setRecipients(Message.RecipientType.TO, InternetAddress.parse("support@acme.com"));
  message.setSubject("[Contact us query] " + subject);
  message.setText(body);
  Transport.send(message);


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Page not working" is submitted in the request, the SMTP headers might take the following form:


  ...
  subject: [Contact us query] Page not working
  ...


However, because the value of the header is constructed from unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for subject does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Congratulations!! You won the lottery!!!\r\ncc:victim1@mail.com,victim2@mail.com ...", then the SMTP headers would be of the following form:


  ...
  subject: [Contact us query] Congratulations!! You won the lottery
  cc: victim1@mail.com,victim2@mail.com
  ...


This will effectively allow an attacker to craft spam messages or to send anonymous emails amongst other attacks.
References
[1] OWASP Testing for IMAP/SMTP Injection (OTG-INPVAL-011)
[2] Vicente Aguilera Díaz MX Injection: Capturing and Exploiting Hidden Mail Servers
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 93
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.java.header_manipulation_smtp
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an SMTP header can enable attackers to add arbitrary headers, such as CC or BCC that they can use to leak the mail contents to themselves or use the mail server as a spam bot.
Explanation
SMTP Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters an application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request in a web application.

2. The data is included in an SMTP header sent to a mail server without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, SMTP Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an SMTP header.

One of the most common SMTP Header Manipulation attacks is for the use of distributing spam emails. If an application contains a vulnerable "Contact us" form that allows setting the subject and the body of the email, an attacker will be able to set any arbitrary content and inject a CC header with a list of email addresses to spam anonymously since the email will be sent from the victim server.

Example: The following code segment reads the subject and body of a "Contact us" form:


$subject = $_GET['subject'];
$body =  $_GET['body'];
mail("support@acme.com", "[Contact us query] " . $subject, $body);


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Page not working" is submitted in the request, the SMTP headers might take the following form:


...
subject: [Contact us query] Page not working
...


However, because the value of the header is constructed from unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for subject does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Congratulations!! You won the lottery!!!\r\ncc:victim1@mail.com,victim2@mail.com ...", then the SMTP headers would be of the following form:


...
subject: [Contact us query] Congratulations!! You won the lottery
cc: victim1@mail.com,victim2@mail.com
...


This will effectively allow an attacker to craft spam messages or to send anonymous emails amongst other attacks.
References
[1] OWASP Testing for IMAP/SMTP Injection (OTG-INPVAL-011)
[2] Vicente Aguilera Díaz MX Injection: Capturing and Exploiting Hidden Mail Servers
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 93
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.php.header_manipulation_smtp
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an SMTP header can enable attackers to add arbitrary headers, such as CC or BCC that they can use to leak the mail contents to themselves or use the mail server as a spam bot.
Explanation
SMTP Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters an application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request in a web application.

2. The data is included in an SMTP header sent to a mail server without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, SMTP Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an SMTP header.

One of the most common SMTP Header Manipulation attacks is for the use of distributing spam emails. If an application contains a vulnerable "Contact us" form that allows setting the subject and the body of the email, an attacker will be able to set any arbitrary content and inject a CC header with a list of email addresses to spam anonymously since the email will be sent from the victim server.

Example: The following code segment reads the subject and body of a "Contact us" form:


body = request.GET['body']
subject = request.GET['subject']
session = smtplib.SMTP(smtp_server, smtp_tls_port)
session.ehlo()
session.starttls()
session.login(username, password)
headers = "\r\n".join(["from: webform@acme.com",
                       "subject: [Contact us query] " + subject,
                       "to: support@acme.com",
                       "mime-version: 1.0",
                       "content-type: text/html"])
content = headers + "\r\n\r\n" + body
session.sendmail("webform@acme.com", "support@acme.com", content)


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Page not working" is submitted in the request, the SMTP headers might take the following form:


...
subject: [Contact us query] Page not working
...


However, because the value of the header is constructed from unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for subject does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Congratulations!! You won the lottery!!!\r\ncc:victim1@mail.com,victim2@mail.com ...", then the SMTP headers would be of the following form:


...
subject: [Contact us query] Congratulations!! You won the lottery
cc: victim1@mail.com,victim2@mail.com
...


This will effectively allow an attacker to craft spam messages or to send anonymous emails amongst other attacks.
References
[1] OWASP Testing for IMAP/SMTP Injection (OTG-INPVAL-011)
[2] Vicente Aguilera Díaz MX Injection: Capturing and Exploiting Hidden Mail Servers
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 93
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.python.header_manipulation_smtp

HTML5: Cross-Site Scripting Protection

Abstract
The X-XSS-Protection header is explicitly disabled which may increase the risk of cross-site scripting attacks.
Explanation
The X-XSS-Protection header is typically enabled by default in modern browsers. When the header value is set to false (0), cross-site scripting protection is disabled.

The header can be set in multiple locations and should be checked for both misconfiguration as well as malicious tampering.
References
[1] IE8 Security Part IV: The XSS Filter
[2] OWASP OWASP Secure Headers Project
[3] HttpResponse.AppendHeader Method
[4] How to prevent cross-site scripting security issues
[5] HOW TO: Disable the Documentation Protocol for ASP.NET Web Services
[6] Configuring Services Using Configuration Files
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[10] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[11] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 554, CWE ID 1173
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[16] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[17] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[18] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[19] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[20] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[21] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[22] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[40] 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
[41] 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
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 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 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.configuration.dotnet.html5_xss_protection
Abstract
The X-XSS-Protection header is explicitly disabled which might increase the risk of cross-site scripting attacks.
Explanation
The X-XSS-Protection header is typically enabled by default in modern browsers. When the header value is set to false (0), cross-site scripting protection is disabled.

The header can be set in multiple locations and should be checked for both misconfiguration as well as malicious tampering.

Example: The following code configures a Spring Security protected application to disable XSS protection:

	<http auto-config="true">
        ...
        <headers>
            ...
            <xss-protection xss-protection-enabled="false" />
        </headers>
	</http>
References
[1] IE8 Security Part IV: The XSS Filter
[2] OWASP OWASP Secure Headers Project
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 554, CWE ID 1173
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[36] 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
[37] 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
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.config.java.html5_cross_site_scripting_protection
Abstract
The X-XSS-Protection header is explicitly disabled which may increase the risk of cross-site scripting attacks.
Explanation
The X-XSS-Protection header is typically enabled by default in modern browsers. When the header value is set to false (0), cross-site scripting protection is disabled.
The header can be set in multiple locations and should be checked for both misconfiguration as well as malicious tampering.
References
[1] IE8 Security Part IV: The XSS Filter
[2] OWASP OWASP Secure Headers Project
[3] Node.js Security Checklist
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 554, CWE ID 1173
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] 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
[38] 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
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.dataflow.javascript.html5_cross_site_scripting_protection
Abstract
The X-XSS-Protection header is explicitly disabled which may increase the risk of cross-site scripting attacks.
Explanation
The X-XSS-Protection header is typically enabled by default in modern browsers. When the header value is set to false (0), cross-site scripting protection is disabled.

The header can be set in multiple locations and should be checked for both misconfiguration as well as malicious tampering.
References
[1] IE8 Security Part IV: The XSS Filter
[2] OWASP OWASP Secure Headers Project
[3] django-secure
[4] SECURE_BROWSER_XSS_FILTER
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 554, CWE ID 1173
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[16] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[17] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[18] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[38] 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
[39] 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
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.structural.python.html5_cross_site_scripting_protection

HTML5: Form Validation Turned Off

Abstract
HTML5 validation of input form fields is disabled.
Explanation
HTML5 provides a new ability to do simple input form fields validation. One can specify whether an input form field is required by using the required attribute. Specifying the field type makes sure that the input is checked against its type. One can even supply a customizable pattern attribute that checks the input against a regular expression. However, this validation gets disabled when adding a novalidate attribute on a form tag and a formnovalidate attribute on a submit input tag.

Example 1: The following sample disables form validation via a novalidate attribute.


      <form action="demo_form.asp" novalidate="novalidate">
        E-mail: <input type="email" name="user_email" />
        <input type="submit" />
      </form>
Example 2: The following sample disables form validation via a formnovalidate attribute.


      <form action="demo_form.asp" >
        E-mail: <input type="email" name="user_email" />
        <input type="submit" formnovalidate="formnovalidate"/>
      </form>


HTML forms with disabled validation are not user-friendly and can potentially expose the server to numerous types of attacks. Unchecked input is the root cause of vulnerabilities like cross-site scripting, process control, and SQL injection.
References
[1] HTML5 form novalidate Attribute W3Schools
[2] HTML5 input formnovalidate Attribute W3Schools
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 1173
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[38] 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
[39] 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
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.content.html.html5_form_validation_turned_off

HTTP Parameter Pollution

Abstract
Concatenating unvalidated input into a URL can allow an attacker to override the value of a request parameter. Attacker may be able to override existing parameter values, inject a new parameter or exploit variables out of a direct reach.
Explanation
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) attacks consist of injecting encoded query string delimiters into other existing parameters. If a web application does not properly sanitize the user input, a malicious user may compromise the logic of the application to perform either client-side or server-side attacks. By submitting additional parameters to a web application, and if these parameters have the same name as an existing parameter, the web application 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


For example:
- ASP.NET/IIS uses all occurrences of the parameters
- Apache Tomcat uses only the first occurrence and ignores others
- mod_perl/Apache converts the value into an array of values

Example 1: Depending on the application server and the logic of the application itself, the following request might cause confusion to the authentication system and allow an attacker to impersonate another user.
http://www.server.com/login.aspx?name=alice&name=hacker

Example 2: The following code uses input from an HTTP request to render two hyperlinks.

    ...
    String lang = Request.Form["lang"];
    WebClient client = new WebClient();
    client.BaseAddress = url;
    NameValueCollection myQueryStringCollection = new NameValueCollection();
    myQueryStringCollection.Add("q", lang);
    client.QueryString = myQueryStringCollection;
    Stream data = client.OpenRead(url);
    ...


URL: http://www.host.com/election.aspx?poll_id=4567
Link1: <a href="http://www.host.com/vote.aspx?poll_id=4567&lang=en">English<a>
Link2: <a href="http://www.host.com/vote.aspx?poll_id=4567&lang=es">Spanish<a>

The programmer has not considered the possibility that an attacker could provide a lang such as en&poll_id=1, and then the attacker may be able to change the poll_id at will.
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
desc.dataflow.dotnet.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
Concatenating unvalidated input into a URL can allow an attacker to override the value of a request parameter. Attacker may be able to override existing parameter values, inject a new parameter or exploit variables out of a direct reach.
Explanation
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) attacks consist of injecting encoded query string delimiters into other existing parameters. If a web application does not properly sanitize the user input, a malicious user may compromise the logic of the application to perform either client-side or server-side attacks. By submitting additional parameters to a web application, and if these parameters have the same name as an existing parameter, the web application 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


For example:
- ASP.NET/IIS uses all occurrences of the parameters
- Apache Tomcat uses only the first occurrence and ignores others
- mod_perl/Apache converts the value into an array of values

Example 1: Depending on the application server and the logic of the application itself, the following request might cause confusion to the authentication system and allow an attacker to impersonate another user.
http://www.example.com/login.php?name=alice&name=hacker

Example 2: The following code uses input from an HTTP request to render two hyperlinks.

    ...
    String lang = request.getParameter("lang");
    GetMethod get = new GetMethod("http://www.example.com");
    get.setQueryString("lang=" + lang + "&poll_id=" + poll_id);
    get.execute();
    ...


URL: http://www.example.com?poll_id=4567
Link1: <a href="http://www.example.com/vote.php?lang=en&poll_id=4567">English<a>
Link2: <a href="http://www.example.com/vote.php?lang=es&poll_id=4567">Spanish<a>

The programmer has not considered the possibility that an attacker could provide a lang such as en&poll_id=1, and then the attacker will be able to change the poll_id at will.
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
desc.dataflow.java.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
Concatenating unvalidated input into a URL can allow an attacker to override the value of a request parameter. Attacker may be able to override existing parameter values, inject a new parameter or exploit variables out of a direct reach.
Explanation
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) attacks consist of injecting encoded query string delimiters into other existing parameters. If a web application does not properly sanitize the user input, a malicious user may compromise the logic of the application to perform either client-side or server-side attacks. By submitting additional parameters to a web application, and if these parameters have the same name as an existing parameter, the web application 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


For example:
- ASP.NET/IIS uses all occurrences of the parameters
- Apache Tomcat uses only the first occurrence and ignores others
- mod_perl/Apache converts the value into an array of values

Example 1: Depending on the application server and the logic of the application itself, the following request might cause confusion to the authentication system and allow an attacker to impersonate another user.
http://www.server.com/login.php?name=alice&name=hacker

Example 2: The following code uses input from an HTTP request to render two hyperlinks.


    <%
        ...
        $id = $_GET["id"];
        header("Location: http://www.host.com/election.php?poll_id=" . $id);
        ...
    %>


URL: http://www.host.com/election.php?poll_id=4567
Link1: <a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=white">Vote for Mr. White<a>
Link2: <a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=green">Vote for Mrs. Green<a>

The programmer has not considered the possibility that an attacker could provide a poll_id such as "4567&candidate=green", and then the resulting page will contain the following injected links and hence Mrs. Green will always be voted on an application server which picks the first parameter.
<a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=green&candidate=white">Vote for Mr. White<a>
<a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=green&candidate=green">Vote for Mrs. Green<a>
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
desc.dataflow.php.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
Concatenating unvalidated input into a URL can allow an attacker to override the value of a request parameter. Attacker may be able to override existing parameter values, inject a new parameter or exploit variables out of a direct reach.
Explanation
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) attacks consist of injecting encoded query string delimiters into other existing parameters. If a web application does not properly sanitize the user input, a malicious user may compromise the logic of the application to perform either client-side or server-side attacks. By submitting additional parameters to a web application, and if these parameters have the same name as an existing parameter, the web application 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.


For example:
- ASP.NET/IIS uses all occurrences of the parameters
- Apache Tomcat uses only the first occurrence and ignores others
- mod_perl/Apache converts the value into an array of values

Example 1: Depending on the application server and the logic of the application itself, the following request might cause confusion to the authentication system and allow an attacker to impersonate another user.
http://www.server.com/login.php?name=alice&name=hacker

As this shows, the attacker already has name=alice specified, but they've added an additional name=alice&, and if this is being used on a server that takes the first occurrence, then this may impersonate alice in order to get further information regarding her account.
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
desc.dataflow.ruby.http_parameter_pollution