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.

Reflected File Download

Abstract
The application allows an attacker to craft a URL that forces a download of arbitrary content that appears to have originated from a trusted domain.
Explanation
Reflected File Download (RFD) is a vulnerability that allows an attacker to craft a phishing URL or page that, when visited, initiates a download of a file containing arbitrary content appearing to have originated from a trusted domain. Because the user has trust in the given domain, he or she is likely to open the downloaded file, potentially resulting in malicious code execution.

In order for an attacker to run a successful RFD attack, the following requirements need to be met:
- The target application reflects user input without proper validation or encoding. This is used to inject a payload.
- The target application allows permissive URLs. The attacker may therefore control the downloaded file's name and extension.
- The target application has a misconfigured Content-Disposition header, allows the attacker to control the Content-Type and/or Content-Disposition headers in the HTTP response, or the target application includes a Content-Type that is not rendered by default in the browser.

For example, if the application uses a Spring Web MVC ContentNegotiationManager to dynamically produce different response formats, it meets the conditions necessary to make an RFD attack possible.

The ContentNegotiationManager is configured to decide the response format based on the request path extension and to use Java Activation Framework (JAF) to find a Content-Type that better matches the client's requested format. It also allows the client to specify the response content type through the media type that is sent in the request's Accept header.

Example 1: In the following example, the application is configured to allow path extension strategy and Java Activation Framework to determine the response's content type:


<bean id="contentNegotiationManager" class="org.springframework.web.accept.ContentNegotiationManagerFactoryBean">
<property name="favorPathExtension" value="true" />
<property name="useJaf" value="true" />
</bean>
Example 2: In the following example, the application is configured to allow the request's Accept header to determine the response's content type:


<bean id="contentNegotiationManager" class="org.springframework.web.accept.ContentNegotiationManagerFactoryBean">
<property name="ignoreAcceptHeader" value="false" />
</bean>


Note that the ContentNegotiationManagerFactoryBean property defaults in Spring 4.2.1 are:

- useJaf: true
- favorPathExtension: true
- ignoreAcceptHeader: false

The configuration shown in Example 1 allows an attacker to craft a malicious URL such as:

http://server/some/resource/endpoint/foo.bat?input=payload

such that the ContentNegotiationManager will use Java Activation Framework (if activation.jar is found in the classpath) to try to resolve the media type for the given file extension and set the response's ContentType header accordingly. In this example, the file extension is "bat", resulting in a Content-Type header of application/x-msdownload (although the exact Content-Type may vary depending on the server OS and JAF configuration). As a result, once the victim visits this malicious URL, his or her machine will automatically initiate the download of a ".bat" file containing attacker-controlled content. If this file is then executed, the victims machine will run any commands specified by the attacker's payload.
References
[1] Oren Hafif Reflected File Download - A New Web Attack Vector
[2] Alvaro Munoz Reflected File Download in Spring MVC
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 233
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.config.java.reflected_file_download