Reino: API Abuse

Un API es un contrato entre un autor de llamada y un receptor de llamada. Las formas de abuso de API más comunes los produce el autor de llamada cuando no consigue atender su fin de este contrato. Por ejemplo, si un programa no consigue llamar chdir() después de llamar chroot(), se viola el contrato que especifica cómo cambiar el directorio de origen activo de una forma segura. Otro buen ejemplo de un abuso de manual es esperar que el receptor devuelva una información de DNS de confianza al autor de llamada. En este caso, el autor de llamada abusa el API del receptor haciendo determinadas suposiciones sobre su comportamiento (que el valor de retorno se puede usar con fines de autenticación). También se puede violar el contrato entre el autor de llamada y el receptor desde el otro lado. Por ejemplo, si un codificador envía SecureRandom y devuelve un valor no aleatorio, se viola el contrato.

Mass Assignment: Insecure Binder Configuration

Abstract
El enlazador de estructuras utilizado para enlazar los parámetros de solicitud HTTP a la clase de modelos no se ha configurado de forma explícita para permitir o no permitir determinados atributos.
Explanation
Para facilitar el desarrollo y aumento de la productividad, la mayoría de las estructuras modernas permiten que se pueda crear una instancia de un objeto automáticamente y rellenar con los parámetros de solicitud HTTP aquellos nombres que coincidan con un atributo de la clase para enlazarlos. Crear instancias y rellenar objetos automáticamente acelera el desarrollo pero puede ocasionar problemas graves si se implementa sin cuidado. Cualquier atributo de las clases enlazadas o clases anidadas se enlazará automáticamente a los parámetros de solicitud HTTP. Por lo tanto, los usuarios malintencionados podrán asignar un valor a cualquier atributo de las clases enlazadas o anidadas, incluso aunque no estén expuestas al cliente a través de formularios web o contratos API.

Ejemplo 1: sin configuración adicional, el siguiente método de controlador ASP.NET MVC enlazará los parámetros de solicitud HTTP a cualquier atributo de las clases RegisterModel o Details:


public ActionResult Register(RegisterModel model)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
try
{
return RedirectToAction("Index", "Home");
}
catch (MembershipCreateUserException e)
{
ModelState.AddModelError("", "");
}
}
return View(model);
}


Donde la clase RegisterModel se define como:


public class RegisterModel
{
[BindRequired]
[Display(Name = "User name")]
public string UserName { get; set; }

[BindRequired]
[DataType(DataType.Password)]
[Display(Name = "Password")]
public string Password { get; set; }

[DataType(DataType.Password)]
[Display(Name = "Confirm password")]
public string ConfirmPassword { get; set; }

public Details Details { get; set; }

public RegisterModel()
{
Details = new Details();
}
}


y la clase Details se define como:


public class Details
{
public bool IsAdmin { get; set; }
...
}
Ejemplo 2: al utilizar TryUpdateModel() o UpdateModel() en ASP.NET MVC o aplicaciones web API, el enlazador de modelos intentará enlazar automáticamente todos los parámetros de solicitud HTTP de forma predeterminada:


public ViewResult Register()
{
var model = new RegisterModel();
TryUpdateModel<RegisterModel>(model);
return View("detail", model);
}
Ejemplo 3: En aplicaciones ASP.NET Web API, el enlazador de modelos intentará enlazar automáticamente todos los parámetros de solicitud HTTP de forma predeterminada utilizando el serializador/deserializador JSON o XML configurado. De forma predeterminada, el enlazador intentará enlazar todos los atributos posibles de los parámetros o el cuerpo de solicitud HTTP:


public class ProductsController : ApiController
{
public string SaveProduct([FromBody] Product p)
{
return p.Name;
}
...
}
Ejemplo 4: en aplicaciones de formularios web de ASP.NET, el enlazador de modelos intentará enlazar automáticamente todos los parámetros de solicitud HTTP de forma predeterminada utilizando TryUpdateModel() o UpdateModel() con la interfaz IValueProvider.

Employee emp = new Employee();
TryUpdateModel(emp, new System.Web.ModelBinding.FormValueProvider(ModelBindingExecutionContext));
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
db.SaveChanges();
}


y la clase Employee se define como:


public class Employee
{
public Employee()
{
IsAdmin = false;
IsManager = false;
}
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Email { get; set; }
public bool IsManager { get; set; }
public bool IsAdmin { get; set; }
}
References
[1] OWASP Mass assignment
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 915
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082, CCI-002754
[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 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.2 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 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 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[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 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.structural.dotnet.mass_assignment_insecure_binder_configuration
Abstract
El enlazador de marco utilizado para enlazar los parámetros de solicitud HTTP a la clase de modelo no se ha configurado explícitamente para permitir o no permitir determinados atributos.
Explanation
Para facilitar el desarrollo y aumentar la productividad, la mayoría de los marcos modernos permiten crear una instancia de un objeto y rellenar ese objeto automáticamente con los parámetros de solicitud HTTP cuyos nombres coincidan con un atributo de la clase `que se va a enlazar. Crear instancias de objetos y rellenar los objetos automáticamente aceleran el desarrollo, pero pueden generar problemas graves si se implementan sin precaución. Cualquier atributo de las clases enlazadas, o clases anidadas, se enlazará automáticamente a los parámetros de solicitud HTTP. Por lo tanto, los usuarios malintencionados podrían asignar un valor a cualquier atributo de las clases enlazadas o anidadas, incluso si no están expuestas al cliente a través de formularios web o contratos API.

Ejemplo 1: Mediante el uso de Spring WebFlow sin configuración adicional, la siguiente acción enlazará los parámetros de solicitud HTTP a cualquier atributo de la clase Booking:


<view-state id="enterBookingDetails" model="booking">
<on-render>
<render fragments="body" />
</on-render>
<transition on="proceed" to="reviewBooking">
</transition>
<transition on="cancel" to="cancel" bind="false" />
</view-state>


Donde la clase Booking se define como:


public class Booking implements Serializable {
private Long id;
private User user;
private Hotel hotel;
private Date checkinDate;
private Date checkoutDate;
private String creditCard;
private String creditCardName;
private int creditCardExpiryMonth;
private int creditCardExpiryYear;
private boolean smoking;
private int beds;
private Set<Amenity> amenities;

// Public Getters and Setters
...
}
References
[1] OWASP Mass assignment
[2] Pivotal Spring MVC Known Vulnerabilities and Issues
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[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 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 915
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082, CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[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 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.2 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 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 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[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 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.config.java.mass_assignment_insecure_binder_configuration