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.

Open Redirect

Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that can be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following ABAP code instructs the user's browser to open a URL parsed from the dest request parameter when a user clicks the link.


...
DATA: str_dest TYPE c.

str_dest = request->get_form_field( 'dest' ).
response->redirect( str_dest ).
...


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing they would be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user may be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[29] 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
[30] 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
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.abap.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that can be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following ActionScript code instructs the user's browser to open a URL read from the dest request parameter when a user clicks the link.


...
var params:Object = LoaderInfo(this.root.loaderInfo).parameters;
var strDest:String = String(params["dest"]);
host.updateLocation(strDest);
...


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing they would be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user may be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[29] 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
[30] 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
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.actionscript.open_redirect
Abstract
A file passes unvalidated data to an HTTP redirect.
Explanation
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks. Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications use redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that an attacker can control.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following Visualforce action method returns a PageReference object consisting of a URL from the dest request parameter.


public PageReference pageAction() {
...
PageReference ref = ApexPages.currentPage();
Map<String,String> params = ref.getParameters();
return new PageReference(params.get('dest'));
}


If a victim receives an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.vf.force.com/apex/vfpage?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user might click on the link believing they will visit a trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails and make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user might be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[29] 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
[30] 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
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.apex.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that can be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following code instructs the user's browser to open a URL parsed from the dest request parameter when a user clicks the link.


String redirect = Request["dest"];
Response.Redirect(redirect);


If a victim receives an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user might click on the link believing they would be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user may be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[29] 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
[30] 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
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.dotnet.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that can be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following JSP code instructs the user's browser to open a URL parsed from the dest request parameter when a user clicks the link.


...
final server = await HttpServer.bind(host, port);
await for (HttpRequest request in server) {
final response = request.response;
final headers = request.headers;
final strDest = headers.value('strDest');
response.headers.contentType = ContentType.text;
response.redirect(Uri.parse(strDest!));
await response.close();
}
...


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing they would be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user might be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[29] 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
[30] 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
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.dart.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that an attacker can control.

Attackers can utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example: The following code instructs the user's browser to open a URL parsed from the dest request parameter when a user clicks the link.


...
strDest := r.Form.Get("dest")
http.Redirect(w, r, strDest, http.StatusSeeOther)
...


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing they will be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 redirects the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination URL as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user can be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[29] 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
[30] 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
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.golang.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that can be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following Spring WebFlow flow state definition instructs the user's browser to open a URL parsed from the dest request parameter when a user clicks the link.


<end-state id="redirectView" view="externalRedirect:#{requestParameters.dest}" />


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing they would be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user may be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[29] 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
[30] 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
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.configuration.java.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that can be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following JavaScript code instructs the user's browser to open a URL read from the dest request parameter when a user clicks the link.


...
strDest = form.dest.value;
window.open(strDest,"myresults");
...


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing they would be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user may be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[29] 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
[30] 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
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.javascript.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that can be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following PHP code instructs the user's browser to open a URL parsed from the dest request parameter when a user clicks the link.


<%
...
$strDest = $_GET["dest"];
header("Location: " . $strDest);
...
%>


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.php?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing they would be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.php?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user may be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[29] 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
[30] 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
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.php.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that can be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following procedure instructs the user's browser to open a URL parsed from the dest request parameter when a user clicks the link.


...
-- Assume QUERY_STRING looks like dest=http://www.wilyhacker.com
dest := SUBSTR(OWA_UTIL.get_cgi_env('QUERY_STRING'), 6);
OWA_UTIL.redirect_url('dest');
...


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.example.com/pls/hr/showemps?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing they would be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/pls/hr/showemps?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user may be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[29] 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
[30] 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
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.sql.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that can be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following Python code instructs the user's browser to open a URL parsed from the dest request parameter when a user clicks the link.


...
strDest = request.field("dest")
redirect(strDest)
...


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing they would be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user may be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[29] 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
[30] 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
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.python.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that can be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following Ruby code instructs the user's browser to open a URL parsed from the dest request parameter:


...
str_dest = req.params['dest']
...
res = Rack::Response.new
...
res.redirect("http://#{dest}")
...


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing they would be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user may be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[29] 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
[30] 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
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.ruby.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that can be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following Play controller method instructs the user's browser to open a URL parsed from the dest request parameter.


def myAction = Action { implicit request =>
...
request.getQueryString("dest") match {
case Some(location) => Redirect(location)
case None => Ok("No url found!")
}
...
}


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing they would be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user may be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[29] 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
[30] 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
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.scala.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that may be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following code handles any requests that use the application's custom URL scheme, sets the requestToLoad to point to the original URL's "dest" parameter if it exists and to the original URL using the http:// scheme otherwise, and finally loads this request within a WKWebView:

AppDelegate.swift:

...
let requestToLoad : String
...
func application(app: UIApplication, openURL url: NSURL, options: [String : AnyObject]) -> Bool {
...
if let urlComponents = NSURLComponents(URL: url, resolvingAgainstBaseURL: false) {
if let queryItems = urlComponents.queryItems as? [NSURLQueryItem]{
for queryItem in queryItems {
if queryItem.name == "dest" {
if let value = queryItem.value {
request = NSURLRequest(URL:NSURL(string:value))
requestToLoad = request
break
}
}
}
}
if requestToLoad == nil {
urlComponents.scheme = "http"
requestToLoad = NSURLRequest(URL:urlComponents.URL)
}
}
...
}
...


ViewController.swift

...
let webView : WKWebView
let appDelegate = UIApplication.sharedApplication().delegate as! AppDelegate
webView.loadRequest(appDelegate.requestToLoad)
...


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "custom_url_scheme://innocent_url?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing that it would perform an innocent action. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will attempt to request and load "http://www.wilyhacker.com" in the WKWebView.

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination url as follows:

"custom_url_scheme://innocent_url?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user may be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[29] 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
[30] 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
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.swift.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that can be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following VB code instructs the user's browser to open a URL parsed from the dest request parameter when a user clicks the link.


...
strDest = Request.Form('dest')
HyperLink.NavigateTo strDest
...


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://www.trustedsite.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing they would be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://www.trustedsite.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user may be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Phishers use IRS tax refund as bait CNet News
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 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 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.vb.open_redirect