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.

gRPC Metadata Manipulation

C#/VB.NET/ASP.NET
Java/JSP

Abstract

A Google Remote Procedure Call (gRPC) Metadata object is created from an untrusted source, which might enable an attacker to control critical protocol fields.

Explanation

The Metadata class is often used to house header data for an underlying protocol used by Google Remote Procedure Call (gRPC). When the underlying protocol is HTTP, control of the data in a Metadata object can make the system vulnerable to HTTP Header Manipulation. Other attack vectors are possible and are primarily based on the underlying protocol.

Example 1: The following code shows untrusted data used as input to a gRPC Metadata object.


    ...
    String? evnVar = System.Environment.GetEnvironmentVariable("evnVar ");
    Metadata headers = new Metadata();
    headers.Add("field", evnVar);
    CallOptions callOptions = new CallOptions(headers);
    ...

References

[1] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754

[2] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI

[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data

[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)

[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation

[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization

[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs

[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation

[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1

[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input

[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws

[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection

[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection

[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection

[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection

[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1

[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2

[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1

[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1

[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1

[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1

[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1

[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4

[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4

[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection

[26] 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

[27] 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

[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I

[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I

[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I

[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I

[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I

[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I

[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I

[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I

[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I

[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I

[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I

[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I

[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I

[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I

[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I

[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I

[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I

[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I

[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I

[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I

[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I

[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I

desc.dataflow.dotnet.grpc_metadata_manipulation

Abstract

A Google Remote Procedure Call (gRPC) Metadata object is created from an untrusted source, which might allow an attacker to control critical protocol fields.

Explanation

The Metadata class is often used to house header data for an underlying protocol used by Google Remote Procedure Call (gRPC). When the underlying protocol is HTTP, control of the data in a Metadata object can make the system vulnerable to HTTP Header Manipulation. Other attack vectors are possible and are primarily based on the underlying protocol.

Example 1: The following code shows user controllable data used as input to a gRPC Metadata object.


...
String badData = getUserInput();
Metadata headers = new Metadata();
headers.put(Metadata.Key.of("sample", Metadata.ASCII_STRING_MARSHALLER), badData);
...