Kingdom: Encapsulation
Encapsulation is about drawing strong boundaries. In a web browser that might mean ensuring that your mobile code cannot be abused by other mobile code. On the server it might mean differentiation between validated data and unvalidated data, between one user's data and another's, or between data users are allowed to see and data that they are not.
Trust Boundary Violation
Abstract
Commingling trusted and untrusted data in the same data structure encourages programmers to mistakenly trust unvalidated data.
Explanation
A trust boundary can be thought of as line drawn through a program. On one side of the line, data is untrusted. On the other side of the line, data is assumed to be trustworthy. The purpose of validation logic is to allow data to safely cross the trust boundary--to move from untrusted to trusted.
A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.
Example 1: The following C# code accepts an HTTP request and stores the
Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.
Example 1: The following C# code accepts an HTTP request and stores the
usrname parameter in the HTTP session object before checking to ensure that the user has been authenticated.
usrname = request.Item("usrname");
if (session.Item(ATTR_USR) == null) {
session.Add(ATTR_USR, usrname);
}
Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
References
[1] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 501
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001084, CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.trust_boundary_violation
Abstract
Commingling trusted and untrusted data in the same data structure encourages programmers to mistakenly trust unvalidated data.
Explanation
A trust boundary can be thought of as line drawn through a program. On one side of the line, data is untrusted. On the other side of the line, data is assumed to be trustworthy. The purpose of validation logic is to allow data to safely cross the trust boundary--to move from untrusted to trusted.
A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.
Example 1: The following Java code accepts an HTTP request and stores the
Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.
Example 1: The following Java code accepts an HTTP request and stores the
usrname parameter in the HTTP session object before checking to ensure that the user has been authenticated.
usrname = request.getParameter("usrname");
if (session.getAttribute(ATTR_USR) != null) {
session.setAttribute(ATTR_USR, usrname);
}
Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
References
[1] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[2] FUNDAMENTALS-4: Establish trust boundaries Oracle
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 501
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001084, CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.trust_boundary_violation
Abstract
Commingling trusted and untrusted data in the same data structure encourages programmers to mistakenly trust unvalidated data.
Explanation
A trust boundary can be thought of as line drawn through a program. On one side of the line, data is untrusted. On the other side of the line, data is assumed to be trustworthy. The purpose of validation logic is to allow data to safely cross the trust boundary--to move from untrusted to trusted.
A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.
Example 1: The following code passes an untrusted item (URL) from an iOS extension JavaScript script to the iOS Extension code.
Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.
Example 1: The following code passes an untrusted item (URL) from an iOS extension JavaScript script to the iOS Extension code.
var GetURL = function() {};
GetURL.prototype = {
run: function(arguments) {
...
arguments.completionFunction({ "URL": document.location.href });
}
...
};
var ExtensionPreprocessingJS = new GetURL;
Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
References
[1] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[2] FUNDAMENTALS-4: Establish trust boundaries Oracle
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 501
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001084, CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.javascript.trust_boundary_violation
Abstract
Commingling trusted and untrusted data in the same data structure encourages programmers to mistakenly trust unvalidated data.
Explanation
A trust boundary can be thought of as line drawn through a program. On one side of the line, data is untrusted. On the other side of the line, data is assumed to be trustworthy. The purpose of validation logic is to allow data to safely cross the trust boundary--to move from untrusted to trusted.
A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.
Example 1: The following Kotlin code accepts an HTTP request and stores the
Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.
Example 1: The following Kotlin code accepts an HTTP request and stores the
usrname parameter in the HTTP session object before checking to ensure that the user has been authenticated.
val usrname: String = request.getParameter("usrname")
if (session.getAttribute(ATTR_USR) != null) {
session.setAttribute(ATTR_USR, usrname)
}
Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
References
[1] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[2] FUNDAMENTALS-4: Establish trust boundaries Oracle
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 501
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001084, CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.kotlin.trust_boundary_violation
Abstract
Commingling trusted and untrusted data in the same data structure encourages programmers to mistakenly trust unvalidated data.
Explanation
A trust boundary can be thought of as a line drawn through a program. On one side of the line, data is untrusted. On the other side of the line, data is assumed to be trustworthy. The purpose of validation logic is to allow data to safely cross the trust boundary--to move from untrusted to trusted.
A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.
Example 1: The following code passes an untrusted item from an iOS extension to the host
Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.
Example 1: The following code passes an untrusted item from an iOS extension to the host
webview.
#import <MobileCoreServices/MobileCoreServices.h>
- (IBAction)done {
...
[self.extensionContext completeRequestReturningItems:@[untrustedItem] completionHandler:nil];
}
Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
References
[1] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 501
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001084, CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.objc.trust_boundary_violation
Abstract
Commingling trusted and untrusted data in the same data structure encourages programmers to mistakenly trust unvalidated data.
Explanation
A trust boundary can be thought of as line drawn through a program. On one side of the line, data is untrusted. On the other side of the line, data is assumed to be trustworthy. The purpose of validation logic is to allow data to safely cross the trust boundary--to move from untrusted to trusted.
A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.
Example: The following code accepts a
Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.
Example: The following code accepts a
usrname cookie and stores its value in the HTTP DB session before it verifies that the user has been authenticated.
...
IF (OWA_COOKIE.get('usrname').num_vals != 0) THEN
usrname := OWA_COOKIE.get('usrname').vals(1);
END IF;
IF (v('ATTR_USR') IS null) THEN
HTMLDB_UTIL.set_session_state('ATTR_USR', usrname);
END IF;
...
Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
References
[1] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 501
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001084, CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.sql.trust_boundary_violation
Abstract
Commingling trusted and untrusted data in the same data structure encourages programmers to mistakenly trust unvalidated data.
Explanation
A trust boundary can be thought of as line drawn through a program. On one side of the line, data is untrusted. On the other side of the line, data is assumed to be trustworthy. The purpose of validation logic is to allow data to safely cross the trust boundary--to move from untrusted to trusted.
A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.
Example 1: The following Python code accepts an HTTP request and stores the
Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.
Example 1: The following Python code accepts an HTTP request and stores the
username parameter in the HTTP session object before checking to ensure that the user has been authenticated.
uname = request.GET['username']
request.session['username'] = uname
Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
References
[1] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 501
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001084, CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.trust_boundary_violation
Abstract
Commingling trusted and untrusted data in the same data structure encourages programmers to mistakenly trust unvalidated data.
Explanation
A trust boundary can be thought of as a line drawn through a program. On one side of the line, data is untrusted. On the other side of the line, data is assumed to be trustworthy. The purpose of validation logic is to allow data to safely cross the trust boundary--to move from untrusted to trusted.
A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.
Example 1: The following code passes an untrusted item from an iOS extension to the host
Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.
Example 1: The following code passes an untrusted item from an iOS extension to the host
webview.
import MobileCoreServices
@IBAction func done() {
...
self.extensionContext!.completeRequestReturningItems([unstrustedItem], completionHandler: nil)
}
Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
References
[1] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 501
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001084, CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.swift.trust_boundary_violation
Abstract
Commingling trusted and untrusted data in the same data structure encourages programmers to mistakenly trust unvalidated data.
Explanation
A trust boundary can be thought of as line drawn through a program. On one side of the line, data is untrusted. On the other side of the line, data is assumed to be trustworthy. The purpose of validation logic is to allow data to safely cross the trust boundary--to move from untrusted to trusted.
A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.
Example 1: The following code accepts an HTTP request and stores the
Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.
Example 1: The following code accepts an HTTP request and stores the
usrname parameter in the HTTP session object before checking to ensure that the user has been authenticated.
...
Dim Response As Response
Dim Request As Request
Dim Session As Session
Dim Application As Application
Dim Server As Server
Dim usrname as Variant
Set Response = objContext("Response")
Set Request = objContext("Request")
Set Session = objContext("Session")
Set Application = objContext("Application")
usrname = Request.Form("usrname")
If IsNull(Session("ATTR_USR")) Then
Session("ATTR_USR") = usrname
End If
...
Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
References
[1] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 501
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001084, CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.vb.trust_boundary_violation