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
Abstract
Deserializing user-controlled XML documents at run-time can allow attackers to execute malicious arbitrary code on the server.
Explanation
XStream library provides the developer with an easy way to transmit objects, serializing them to XML documents. However, XStream deserialization might enable an attacker to run arbitrary Java code on the server.

Example 1: The following Java code shows an instance of XStream processing untrusted input.


XStream xstream = new XStream();
String body = IOUtils.toString(request.getInputStream(), "UTF-8");
Contact expl = (Contact) xstream.fromXML(body);
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 502
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [23] CWE ID 502
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [21] CWE ID 502
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [13] CWE ID 502
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [12] CWE ID 502
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [15] CWE ID 502
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[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 A6 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A8 Insecure Deserialization
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.2 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.5.1 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.3 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[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 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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, Control Objective C.3.5 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.dynamic_code_evaluation_unsafe_xstream_deserialization
Abstract
Deserializing user-controlled YAML streams might enable attackers to execute arbitrary code on the server, abuse application logic, and/or lead to denial of service.
Explanation
YAML serialization libraries, which convert object graphs into YAML formatted data may include the necessary metadata to reconstruct the objects back from the YAML stream. If attackers can specify the classes of the objects to be reconstructed and are able to force the application to run arbitrary setters with user-controlled data, they may be able to execute arbitrary code during the deserialization of the YAML stream.

Example: The following example deserializes an untrusted YAML string using the YamlDotNet parser.


var yamlString = getYAMLFromUser();

// Setup the input
var input = new StringReader(yamlString);

// Load the stream
var yaml = new YamlStream();
yaml.Load(input);
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 502
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [23] CWE ID 502
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [21] CWE ID 502
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [13] CWE ID 502
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [12] CWE ID 502
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [15] CWE ID 502
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[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 A6 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A8 Insecure Deserialization
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.2 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.5.1 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.3 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[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 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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, Control Objective C.3.5 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.dynamic_code_evaluation_unsafe_yaml_deserialization
Abstract
Deserializing user-controlled YAML streams might enable attackers to execute arbitrary code on the server, abuse application logic, and/or lead to denial of service.
Explanation
YAML serialization libraries, which convert object graphs into YAML formatted data may include the necessary metadata to reconstruct the objects back from the YAML stream. If attackers can specify the classes of the objects to be reconstructed and are able to force the application to run arbitrary setters with user-controlled data, they may be able to execute arbitrary code during the deserialization of the YAML stream.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 502
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [23] CWE ID 502
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [21] CWE ID 502
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [13] CWE ID 502
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [12] CWE ID 502
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [15] CWE ID 502
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[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 A6 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A8 Insecure Deserialization
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.2 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.5.1 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.3 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[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 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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, Control Objective C.3.5 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.dynamic_code_evaluation_unsafe_yaml_deserialization
Abstract
Deserializing user-controlled YAML streams might enable attackers to execute arbitrary code on the server, abuse application logic, and/or lead to denial of service.
Explanation
YAML serialization libraries, which convert object graphs into YAML formatted data may include the necessary metadata to reconstruct the objects back from the YAML stream. If attackers can specify the classes of the objects to be reconstructed and are able to force the application to run arbitrary setters with user-controlled data, they may be able to execute arbitrary code during the deserialization of the YAML stream.

Example 1: The following example deserializes an untrusted YAML string using an insecure YAML parser.


var yaml = require('js-yaml');

var untrusted_yaml = getYAMLFromUser();
yaml.load(untrusted_yaml)
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 502
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [23] CWE ID 502
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [21] CWE ID 502
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [13] CWE ID 502
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [12] CWE ID 502
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [15] CWE ID 502
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[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 A6 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A8 Insecure Deserialization
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.2 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.5.1 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.3 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[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 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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, Control Objective C.3.5 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.javascript.dynamic_code_evaluation_unsafe_yaml_deserialization
Abstract
Deserializing user-controlled YAML streams might enable attackers to execute arbitrary code on the server, abuse application logic, and/or lead to denial of service.
Explanation
YAML serialization libraries, which convert object graphs into YAML formatted data may include the necessary metadata to reconstruct the objects back from the YAML stream. If attackers can specify the classes of the objects to be reconstructed and are able to force the application to run arbitrary setters with user-controlled data, they may be able to execute arbitrary code during the deserialization of the YAML stream.

Example 1: The following example deserializes an untrusted YAML string using an insecure YAML loader.


import yaml

yamlString = getYamlFromUser()
yaml.load(yamlString)
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 502
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [23] CWE ID 502
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [21] CWE ID 502
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [13] CWE ID 502
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [12] CWE ID 502
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [15] CWE ID 502
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[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 A6 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A8 Insecure Deserialization
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.2 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.5.1 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.3 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[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 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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, Control Objective C.3.5 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.dynamic_code_evaluation_unsafe_yaml_deserialization
Abstract
Deserializing user-controlled XML documents at run-time can allow attackers to execute malicious arbitrary code on the server.
Explanation
The JDK XMLEncoder and XMLDecoder classes provide the developer with an easy way to persist objects, serializing them to XML documents. But XMLEncoder also allows a developer to serialize method calls and if an attacker can provide the XML document to be deserialized by XMLDecoder, he may be able to execute any arbitrary code on the server.

Example: The following Java code shows an instance of XMLDecoder processing untrusted input.


XMLDecoder decoder = new XMLDecoder(new InputSource(new InputStreamReader(request.getInputStream(), "UTF-8")));

Object object = decoder.readObject();
decoder.close();
Example: The following XML document will instantiate a ProcessBuilder object and will invoke its static start() method to run the windows calculator.


<java>
<object class="java.lang.ProcessBuilder">
<array class="java.lang.String" length="1" >
<void index="0">
<string>c:\\windows\\system32\\calc.exe</string>
</void>
</array>
<void method="start"/>
</object>
</java>
References
[1] Oracle Oracle official documentation for XMLDecoder
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 502
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [23] CWE ID 502
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [21] CWE ID 502
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [13] CWE ID 502
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [12] CWE ID 502
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [15] CWE ID 502
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-001764, CCI-001774, 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 A6 Injection Flaws
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A8 Insecure Deserialization
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.2 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.5.1 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.3 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[39] 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
[40] 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
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.dynamic_code_evaluation_xmldecoder_injection
Abstract
Failure to validate untrusted user data before assigning it to attribute values of certain Spring MVC JSP tags could allow an attacker to steal sensitive application information as well as bypass HTTPOnly cookie access restrictions.
Explanation
Expression Language (EL) allows JSP pages to easily access application data stored in user-defined JavaBeans components as well the implicit objects. In addition, JSP pages can also invoke arbitrary public and static methods and perform arithmetic operations using EL expressions.
By allowing attackers to inject EL expressions through insufficiently validated user input, an application could grant unauthorized access to sensitive application and server information. Expression Language injection could also allow an attacker to evade HTTPOnly access restrictions imposed on cookies by exploiting access to the implicit cookie object made available in EL expressions.
desc.dynamic.java.expression_language_injection
Abstract
The evaluation of unvalidated SpEL expressions can lead to remote code execution.
Explanation
The Spring Expression Language (SpEL for short) is a powerful expression language that supports querying and manipulating an object graph at runtime. The language syntax is similar to Unified EL but offers additional features, most notably method invocation and basic string templating functionality.
Allowing unvalidated expressions to be evaluated will let an attacker execute arbitrary code.

Example 1: The application uses unvalidated data controlled by the user to create and evaluate a SpEL expression:


String expression = request.getParameter("input");
SpelExpressionParser parser = new SpelExpressionParser();
SpelExpression expr = parser.parseRaw(expression);
Example 2: The application uses unvalidated data controlled by the user in a Spring tag that perfoms double SpEL evaluation:


<spring:message text="" code="${param['message']}"></spring:message>
References
[1] Dan Amodio Remote Code with Expression Language Injection
[2] Expression Language Injection OWASP
[3] CVE-2011-2730 Red Hat
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[10] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 94, CWE ID 95, CWE ID 917
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [25] CWE ID 077
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [17] CWE ID 077, [25] CWE ID 094
[16] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [16] CWE ID 077, [23] CWE ID 094
[17] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[18] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[19] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[21] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[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 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.expression_language_injection_spring
Abstract
Allowing an attacker to control a function's format string can result in a buffer overflow.
Explanation
Format string vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters the application from an untrusted source.



2. The data is passed as the format string argument to a function like sprintf(), FormatMessageW(), or syslog().
Example 1: The following code copies a command line argument into a buffer using snprintf().


int main(int argc, char **argv){
char buf[128];
...
snprintf(buf,128,argv[1]);
}


This code allows an attacker to view the contents of the stack and write to the stack using a command line argument containing a sequence of formatting directives. The attacker may read from the stack by providing more formatting directives, such as %x, than the function takes as arguments to be formatted. (In this example, the function takes no arguments to be formatted.) By using the %n formatting directive, the attacker may write to the stack, causing snprintf() to write the number of bytes output thus far to the specified argument (rather than reading a value from the argument, which is the intended behavior). A sophisticated version of this attack will use four staggered writes to completely control the value of a pointer on the stack.

Example 2: Certain implementations make more advanced attacks even easier by providing format directives that control the location in memory to read from or write to. An example of these directives is shown in the following code, written for glibc:


printf("%d %d %1$d %1$d\n", 5, 9);


This code produces the following output:


5 9 5 5


It is also possible to use half-writes (%hn) to accurately control arbitrary DWORDS in memory, which greatly reduces the complexity needed to execute an attack that would otherwise require four staggered writes, such as the one mentioned in Example 1.

Example 3: Simple format string vulnerabilities often result from seemingly innocuous shortcuts. The use of some such shortcuts is so ingrained that programmers might not even realize that the function they are using expects a format string argument.

For example, the syslog() function is sometimes used as follows:


...
syslog(LOG_ERR, cmdBuf);
...


Because the second parameter to syslog() is a format string, any formatting directives included in cmdBuf are interpreted as described in Example 1.

The following code shows a correct usage of syslog():


...
syslog(LOG_ERR, "%s", cmdBuf);
...
References
[1] T. Newsham Format String Attacks Guardent, Inc.
desc.dataflow.cpp.format_string
Abstract
An attacker may control the format string argument allowing an attack much like a buffer overflow.
Explanation
Format string vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters the application from an untrusted source.



2. The data is passed as the format string argument to a function like sprintf(), FormatMessageW(), syslog(), NSLog, or NSString.stringWithFormatExample 1: The following code utilizes a command line argument as a format string in NSString.stringWithFormat:.


int main(int argc, char **argv){
char buf[128];
...
[NSString stringWithFormat:argv[1], argv[2] ];
}


This code allows an attacker to view the contents of the stack and corrupt the stack using a command line argument containing a sequence of formatting directives. The attacker may read from the stack by providing more formatting directives, such as %x, than the function takes as arguments to be formatted. (In this example, the function takes no arguments to be formatted.)

Objective-C supports the legacy C standard libraries so the following examples are exploitable if your application uses C APIs.

Example 2: Certain implementations make more advanced attacks even easier by providing format directives that control the location in memory to read from or write to. An example of these directives is shown in the following code, written for glibc:


printf("%d %d %1$d %1$d\n", 5, 9);


This code produces the following output:


5 9 5 5


It is also possible to use half-writes (%hn) to accurately control arbitrary DWORDS in memory, which greatly reduces the complexity needed to execute an attack that would otherwise require four staggered writes, such as the one mentioned in Example 1.

Example 3: Simple format string vulnerabilities often result from seemingly innocuous shortcuts. The use of some such shortcuts is so ingrained that programmers might not even realize that the function they are using expects a format string argument.

For example, the syslog() function is sometimes used as follows:


...
syslog(LOG_ERR, cmdBuf);
...


Because the second parameter to syslog() is a format string, any formatting directives included in cmdBuf are interpreted as described in Example 1.

The following code shows a correct usage of syslog():


...
syslog(LOG_ERR, "%s", cmdBuf);
...
Example 4: Apple core classes provide interesting avenues for exploiting format string vulnerabilities.

For example, the String.stringByAppendingFormat() function is sometimes used as follows:


...
NSString test = @"Sample Text.";
test = [test stringByAppendingFormat:[MyClass
formatInput:inputControl.text]];
...


stringByAppendingFormat will parse any format string characters contained within the NSString passed to it.

The following code shows a correct usage of stringByAppendingFormat():


...
NSString test = @"Sample Text.";
test = [test stringByAppendingFormat:@"%@", [MyClass
formatInput:inputControl.text]];
...
References
[1] T. Newsham Format String Attacks Guardent, Inc.
desc.dataflow.objc.format_string
Abstract
Attackers might control data written to a spreadsheet, which could enable them to target users who open the file on certain spreadsheet processors.
Explanation
Popular spreadsheet processors such as Apache OpenOffice Calc and Microsoft Office Excel support powerful formula operations that might enable attackers in control of the spreadsheet to run arbitrary commands on the underlying system or leak sensitive information on the spreadsheet.

As an example, the attacker may inject the following payload as part of a CSV field: =cmd|'/C calc.exe'!Z0. If the user who opens the spreadsheet trusts the origin of the document, they might accept all the security prompts presented by the spreadsheet processor and let the payload (in this example, opening the Windows calculator) run on their system.

Example: The following example shows an ASP.NET Controller that generates a CSV response with non-sanitized user-controlled data:


public void Service()
{
string name = HttpContext.Request["name"];

string data = GenerateCSVFor(name);
HttpContext.Response.Clear();
HttpContext.Response.Buffer = true;
HttpContext.Response.AddHeader("content-disposition", "attachment;filename=file.csv");
HttpContext.Response.Charset = "";
HttpContext.Response.ContentType = "application/csv";
HttpContext.Response.Output.Write(tainted);
HttpContext.Response.Flush();
HttpContext.Response.End();
}
References
[1] Formula Injection Pentest Magazine
[2] Comma Separated Vulnerabilities Context
desc.dataflow.dotnet.formula_injection
Abstract
Attackers might control data written to a spreadsheet, which could enable them to target users who open the file on certain spreadsheet processors.
Explanation
Popular spreadsheet processors such as Apache OpenOffice Calc and Microsoft Office Excel support powerful formula operations that might enable attackers in control of the spreadsheet to run arbitrary commands on the underlying system or leak sensitive information on the spreadsheet.

As an example, the attacker may inject the following payload as part of a CSV field: =cmd|'/C calc.exe'!Z0. If the user who opens the spreadsheet trusts the origin of the document, they might accept all the security prompts presented by the spreadsheet processor and let the payload (in this example, opening the Windows calculator) run on their system.

Example: The following example writes to a csv file using non-sanitized user-controlled data:


func someHandler(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request){
r.parseForm()
foo := r.FormValue("foo")
...
w := csv.NewWriter(file)
w.Write(foo)
}
References
[1] Formula Injection Pentest Magazine
[2] Comma Separated Vulnerabilities Context
desc.dataflow.golang.formula_injection
Abstract
Attackers might control data written to a spreadsheet, which could enable them to target users who open the file on certain spreadsheet processors.
Explanation
Popular spreadsheet processors such as Apache OpenOffice Calc and Microsoft Office Excel support powerful formula operations that might enable attackers in control of the spreadsheet to run arbitrary commands on the underlying system or leak sensitive information on the spreadsheet.

As an example, the attacker may inject the following payload as part of a CSV field: =cmd|'/C calc.exe'!Z0. If the user who opens the spreadsheet trusts the origin of the document, they might accept all the security prompts presented by the spreadsheet processor and let the payload (in this example, opening the Windows calculator) run on their system.

Example: The following example shows a Spring Controller that generates a CSV response with non-sanitized user-controlled data:


@RequestMapping(value = "/api/service.csv")
public ResponseEntity<String> service(@RequestParam("name") String name) {

HttpHeaders responseHeaders = new HttpHeaders();
responseHeaders.add("Content-Type", "application/csv; charset=utf-8");
responseHeaders.add("Content-Disposition", "attachment;filename=file.csv");

String data = generateCSVFor(name);

return new ResponseEntity<>(data, responseHeaders, HttpStatus.OK);
}
References
[1] Formula Injection Pentest Magazine
[2] Comma Separated Vulnerabilities Context
desc.dataflow.java.formula_injection
Abstract
Attackers might control data written to a spreadsheet, which could enable them to target users who open the file on certain spreadsheet processors.
Explanation
Popular spreadsheet processors such as Apache OpenOffice Calc and Microsoft Office Excel support powerful formula operations that might enable attackers in control of the spreadsheet to run arbitrary commands on the underlying system or leak sensitive information on the spreadsheet.

As an example, the attacker may inject the following payload as part of a CSV field: =cmd|'/C calc.exe'!Z0. If the user who opens the spreadsheet trusts the origin of the document, they might accept all the security prompts presented by the spreadsheet processor and let the payload (in this example, opening the Windows calculator) run on their system.

Example: The following example shows a Spring Controller that generates a CSV response with non-sanitized user-controlled data:


@RequestMapping(value = "/api/service.csv")
fun service(@RequestParam("name") name: String): ResponseEntity<String> {
val responseHeaders = HttpHeaders()
responseHeaders.add("Content-Type", "application/csv; charset=utf-8")
responseHeaders.add("Content-Disposition", "attachment;filename=file.csv")
val data: String = generateCSVFor(name)
return ResponseEntity(data, responseHeaders, HttpStatus.OK)
}
References
[1] Formula Injection Pentest Magazine
[2] Comma Separated Vulnerabilities Context
desc.dataflow.kotlin.formula_injection