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.
LDAP Injection
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic LDAP filter with user input could allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning.
Explanation
LDAP injection errors occur when:
1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.
In this case, Fortify Static Code Analyzer could not determine that the source of the data is trusted.
2. The data is used to dynamically construct an LDAP filter.
Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes an LDAP query that retrieves records for all the employees who report to a given manager. The manager's name is read from an HTTP request, and is therefore untrusted.
Under normal conditions, such as searching for employees who report to the manager John Smith, the filter that this code executes will look like the following:
However, because the filter is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if
Based on the permissions with which the query is executed, the addition of the
1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.
In this case, Fortify Static Code Analyzer could not determine that the source of the data is trusted.
2. The data is used to dynamically construct an LDAP filter.
Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes an LDAP query that retrieves records for all the employees who report to a given manager. The manager's name is read from an HTTP request, and is therefore untrusted.
...
DirectorySearcher src =
new DirectorySearcher("(manager=" + managerName.Text + ")");
src.SearchRoot = de;
src.SearchScope = SearchScope.Subtree;
foreach(SearchResult res in src.FindAll()) {
...
}
Under normal conditions, such as searching for employees who report to the manager John Smith, the filter that this code executes will look like the following:
(manager=Smith, John)
However, because the filter is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if
managerName
does not contain any LDAP meta characters. If an attacker enters the string Hacker, Wiley)(|(objectclass=*)
for managerName
, then the query becomes the following:
(manager=Hacker, Wiley)(|(objectclass=*))
Based on the permissions with which the query is executed, the addition of the
|(objectclass=*)
condition causes the filter to match against all entries in the directory, and allows the attacker to retrieve information about the entire pool of users. Depending on the permissions with which the LDAP query is performed, the breadth of this attack may be limited, but if the attacker may control the command structure of the query, such an attack can at least affect all records that the user the LDAP query is executed as can access.References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 90
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.7 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 LDAP Injection (WASC-29)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 LDAP Injection
desc.semantic.dotnet.ldap_injection
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic LDAP filter with user input could allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning.
Explanation
LDAP injection errors occur when:
1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.
2. The data is used to dynamically construct an LDAP filter.
Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes an LDAP query that retrieves records for all the employees who report to a given manager. The manager's name is read from a network socket, and is therefore untrusted.
Under normal conditions, such as searching for employees who report to the manager John Smith, the filter that this code executes will look like the following:
However, because the filter is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if
Based on the permissions with which the query is executed, the addition of the
1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.
2. The data is used to dynamically construct an LDAP filter.
Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes an LDAP query that retrieves records for all the employees who report to a given manager. The manager's name is read from a network socket, and is therefore untrusted.
fgets(manager, sizeof(manager), socket);
snprintf(filter, sizeof(filter, "(manager=%s)", manager);
if ( ( rc = ldap_search_ext_s( ld, FIND_DN, LDAP_SCOPE_BASE,
filter, NULL, 0, NULL, NULL, LDAP_NO_LIMIT,
LDAP_NO_LIMIT, &result ) ) == LDAP_SUCCESS ) {
...
}
Under normal conditions, such as searching for employees who report to the manager John Smith, the filter that this code executes will look like the following:
(manager=Smith, John)
However, because the filter is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if
manager
does not contain any LDAP meta characters. If an attacker enters the string Hacker, Wiley)(|(objectclass=*)
for manager
, then the query becomes the following:
(manager=Hacker, Wiley)(|(objectclass=*))
Based on the permissions with which the query is executed, the addition of the
|(objectclass=*)
condition causes the filter to match against all entries in the directory, and allows the attacker to retrieve information about the entire pool of users. Depending on the permissions with which the LDAP query is performed, the breadth of this attack may be limited, but if the attacker may control the command structure of the query, such an attack can at least affect all records that the user the LDAP query is executed as can access.References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 90
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.7 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 LDAP Injection (WASC-29)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 LDAP Injection
desc.dataflow.cpp.ldap_injection
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic LDAP filter with user input could allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning.
Explanation
LDAP injection errors occur when:
1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.
2. The data is used to dynamically construct an LDAP filter.
Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes an LDAP query that retrieves records for all the employees who report to a given manager. The manager's name is read from an HTTP request, and is therefore untrusted.
Under normal conditions, such as searching for employees who report to the manager John Smith, the filter that this code executes will look like the following:
However, because the filter is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if
Based on the permissions with which the query is executed, the addition of the
1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.
2. The data is used to dynamically construct an LDAP filter.
Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes an LDAP query that retrieves records for all the employees who report to a given manager. The manager's name is read from an HTTP request, and is therefore untrusted.
...
DirContext ctx = new InitialDirContext(env);
String managerName = request.getParameter("managerName");
//retrieve all of the employees who report to a manager
String filter = "(manager=" + managerName + ")";
NamingEnumeration employees = ctx.search("ou=People,dc=example,dc=com",
filter);
...
Under normal conditions, such as searching for employees who report to the manager John Smith, the filter that this code executes will look like the following:
(manager=Smith, John)
However, because the filter is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if
managerName
does not contain any LDAP meta characters. If an attacker enters the string Hacker, Wiley)(|(objectclass=*)
for managerName
, then the query becomes the following:
(manager=Hacker, Wiley)(|(objectclass=*))
Based on the permissions with which the query is executed, the addition of the
|(objectclass=*)
condition causes the filter to match against all entries in the directory, and allows the attacker to retrieve information about the entire pool of users. Depending on the permissions with which the LDAP query is performed, the breadth of this attack may be limited, but if the attacker may control the command structure of the query, such an attack can at least affect all records that the user the LDAP query is executed as can access.References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 90
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.7 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 LDAP Injection (WASC-29)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 LDAP Injection
desc.dataflow.java.ldap_injection
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic LDAP filter with user input could allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning.
Explanation
LDAP injection errors occur when:
1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.
2. The data is used to dynamically construct an LDAP filter.
Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes an LDAP query that retrieves records for all the employees who report to a given manager. The manager's name is read from an HTTP request, and is therefore untrusted.
Under normal conditions, such as searching for employees who report to the manager John Smith, the filter that this code executes will look like the following:
However, because the filter is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if
Based on the permissions with which the query is executed, the addition of the
1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.
2. The data is used to dynamically construct an LDAP filter.
Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes an LDAP query that retrieves records for all the employees who report to a given manager. The manager's name is read from an HTTP request, and is therefore untrusted.
...
$managerName = $_POST["managerName"]];
//retrieve all of the employees who report to a manager
$filter = "(manager=" . $managerName . ")";
$result = ldap_search($ds, "ou=People,dc=example,dc=com", $filter);
...
Under normal conditions, such as searching for employees who report to the manager John Smith, the filter that this code executes will look like the following:
(manager=Smith, John)
However, because the filter is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if
managerName
does not contain any LDAP meta characters. If an attacker enters the string Hacker, Wiley)(|(objectclass=*)
for managerName
, then the query becomes the following:
(manager=Hacker, Wiley)(|(objectclass=*))
Based on the permissions with which the query is executed, the addition of the
|(objectclass=*)
condition causes the filter to match against all entries in the directory, and allows the attacker to retrieve information about the entire pool of users. Depending on the permissions with which the LDAP query is performed, the breadth of this attack may be limited, but if the attacker may control the command structure of the query, such an attack can at least affect all records that the user the LDAP query is executed as can access.References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 90
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.7 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 LDAP Injection (WASC-29)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 LDAP Injection
desc.dataflow.php.ldap_injection