4 items found
Weaknesses
Abstract
Debugging messages help attackers learn about the system and plan a form of attack.
Explanation
Android applications can be configured to produce debug binaries. These binaries give detailed debugging messages and should not be used in production environments. The debuggable attribute of the <application> tag defines whether compiled binaries should include debugging information.

The use of debug binaries causes an application to provide as much information about itself as possible to the user. Debug binaries are meant to be used in a development or testing environment and can pose a security risk if they are deployed to production. Attackers may leverage the additional information they gain from debugging output to mount attacks targeted on the framework, database, or other resources used by the application.
References
[1] JavaDoc for Android Android
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 11
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001312, CCI-001314, CCI-002420, CCI-003272
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools (P2), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1), SI-11 Error Handling (P2)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity, SI-11 Error Handling
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M10 Lack of Binary Protections
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-RESILIENCE-4
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.config.java.android_misconfiguration_debug_information
Abstract
This function violates the contract that it must compare its parameter with null.
Explanation
The Java standard requires that implementations of Object.equals(), Comparable.compareTo(), and Comparator.compare() must return a specified value if their parameters are null. Failing to follow this contract may result in unexpected behavior.

Example 1: The following implementation of the equals() method does not compare its parameter with null.


public boolean equals(Object object)
{
return (toString().equals(object.toString()));
}
References
[1] MET10-J. Follow the general contract when implementing the compareTo() method CERT
[2] MET08-J. Preserve the equality contract when overriding the equals() method CERT
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 398
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
desc.controlflow.java.missing_check_for_null_parameter
Abstract
The program accesses a variable in an ambiguous way, which can leave it open to attack.
Explanation
The HttpRequest class provides programmatic access to variables from the QueryString, Form, Cookies or ServerVariables collections in the form of an array access (e.g. Request["myParam"]). When more than one variable exists with the same name, the .NET framework returns the value of the variable that appears first when the collections are searched in the following order: QueryString, Form, Cookies then ServerVariables. Since QueryString comes first in the search order, it is possible for QueryString parameters to supersede values from forms, cookies, and server variables. Similarly, form values can supersede variables in the Cookies and ServerVariables collections and variables from the Cookies collection can supersede those from ServerVariables.
Example 1: Imagine a banking application temporarily stores a user's email address in a cookie and reads this value when it wants to contact the user. The following code reads the cookie value and sends an account balance to the specified email address.

...
String toAddress = Request["email"]; //Expects cookie value
Double balance = GetBalance(userID);
SendAccountBalance(toAddress, balance);
...

Assume the code in Example 1 is executed when visiting http://www.example.com/GetBalance.aspx. If an attacker can cause an authenticated user to click a link that requests http://www.example.com/GetBalance.aspx?email=evil%40evil.com, an email with the user's account balance will be sent to evil@evil.com.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310
[2] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[4] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[10] 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
[11] 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
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
desc.semantic.dotnet.value_shadowing
Abstract
The program accesses a server variable in an ambiguous way, which can leave it open to attack.
Explanation
The HttpRequest class provides programmatic access to variables from the QueryString, Form, Cookies or ServerVariables collections in the form of an array access (e.g. Request["myParam"]). When more than one variable exists with the same name, the .NET framework returns the value of the variable that appears first when the collections are searched in the following order: QueryString, Form, Cookies then ServerVariables. Since QueryString comes first in the search order, it is possible for QueryString parameters to supersede values from forms, cookies, and server variables. Similarly, form values can supersede variables in the Cookies and ServerVariables collections and variables from the Cookies collection can supersede those from ServerVariables.
Example 1: The following code checks the HTTP Referer header server variable to see if the request came from www.example.com before serving content.

...
if (Request["HTTP_REFERER"].StartsWith("http://www.example.com"))
ServeContent();
else
Response.Redirect("http://www.example.com/");
...


Assume the code in Example 1 is executed when visiting http://www.example.com/ProtectedImages.aspx. If an attacker makes a direct request to the URL, the appropriate referer header will not be set and the request will fail. However, if the attacker submits an artificial HTTP_REFERER parameter with the necessary value, such as http://www.example.com/ProtectedImages.aspx?HTTP_REFERER=http%3a%2f%2fwww.example.com, then the lookup will return the value from QueryString instead of ServerVariables and the check will succeed.
References
[1] Microsoft IIS Server Variables
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[11] 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
[12] 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
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
desc.semantic.dotnet.value_shadowing_server_variable