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.
SQL Injection: PartiQL
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic PartiQL statement with input that comes from an untrusted source might allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or to execute arbitrary PartiQL commands.
Explanation
SQL Injection: PartiQL issues occur when:
1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.
2. The data is used to dynamically construct a PartiQL query.
Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a PartiQL query that searches for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where
The query intends to execute the following code:
However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if
The addition of the
One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only characters from an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be a very effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers may:
- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters
Manually escaping characters in input to PartiQL queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from PartiQL injection attacks.
1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.
2. The data is used to dynamically construct a PartiQL query.
Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a PartiQL query that searches for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where
owner
matches the user name of the currently-authenticated user.
...
string userName = identity.User;
string itemName = apiGatewayProxyRequest.QueryStringParameters['item'];
string statement = $"SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '{userName}' AND itemname = '{itemName}'";
var executeStatementRequest = new ExecuteStatementRequest();
executeStatementRequest.Statement = statement;
var executeStatementResponse = await dynamoDBClient.ExecuteStatementAsync(executeStatementRequest);
return displayResults(executeStatementResponse.Items);
...
The query intends to execute the following code:
SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;
However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if
itemName
does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley
enters the string "name' OR 'a'='a
" for itemName
, then the query becomes the following:
SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';
The addition of the
OR 'a'='a'
condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so the query becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only characters from an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be a very effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers may:
- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters
Manually escaping characters in input to PartiQL queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from PartiQL injection attacks.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] PartiQL - A SQL-Compatible Query Language for Amazon DynamoDB
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[35] 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
[36] 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
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.dotnet.sql_injection_partiql
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic PartiQL statement with input that comes from an untrusted source might allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or to execute arbitrary PartiQL commands.
Explanation
SQL Injection: PartiQL issues occur when:
1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.
2. The data is used to dynamically construct a PartiQL query.
Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a PartiQL query that searches for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where
The query intends to execute the following code:
However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if
The addition of the
One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only characters from an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be a very effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers may:
- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters
Manually escaping characters in input to PartiQL queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from PartiQL injection attacks.
1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.
2. The data is used to dynamically construct a PartiQL query.
Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a PartiQL query that searches for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where
owner
matches the user name of the currently-authenticated user.
...
String userName = identity.getUser();
String itemName = apiGatewayProxyRequest.getQueryStringParameters('item');
String statement = String.format("SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '%s' AND itemname = '%s'", userName, itemName);
ExecuteStatementRequest executeStatementRequest = new ExecuteStatementRequest();
executeStatementRequest.setStatement(statement);
ExecuteStatementResponse executeStatementResponse = dynamoDBClient.executeStatement(executeStatementRequest);
return displayResults(executeStatementResponse.items());
...
The query intends to execute the following code:
SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;
However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if
itemName
does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley
enters the string "name' OR 'a'='a
" for itemName
, then the query becomes the following:
SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';
The addition of the
OR 'a'='a'
condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so the query becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only characters from an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be a very effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers may:
- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters
Manually escaping characters in input to PartiQL queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from PartiQL injection attacks.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] PartiQL - A SQL-Compatible Query Language for Amazon DynamoDB
[6] IDS00-J. Prevent SQL Injection CERT
[7] INJECT-2: Avoid dynamic SQL Oracle
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] 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
[38] 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
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.java.sql_injection_partiql