181 items found
Weaknesses
Abstract
Allowing user input to directly alter file permissions might enable an attacker to access otherwise protected system resources.
Explanation
File permission manipulation errors occur when any of the following conditions are met:

1. An attacker might specify a path used in an operation that modifies permissions on the file system.

2. An attacker might specify the permissions assigned by an operation on the file system.

Example 1: The following code uses input from system environment variables to set file permissions. If attackers can alter the system environment variables, they might use the program to gain access to files manipulated by the program. If the program is also vulnerable to path manipulation, an attacker might use this vulnerability to access arbitrary files on system.


permissions := strconv.Atoi(os.Getenv("filePermissions"));
fMode := os.FileMode(permissions)
os.chmod(filePath, fMode);
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 264, CWE ID 732
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.golang.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing user input to directly alter file permissions may enable an attacker to access otherwise protected system resources.
Explanation
File permission manipulation errors occur when any of the following conditions are met:

1. An attacker is able to specify a path used in an operation that modifies permissions on the file system.

2. An attacker is able to specify the permissions assigned by an operation on the file system.

Example 1: The following code uses input from system properties to set the default permission mask. If attackers can alter the system properties, they may use the program to gain access to files manipulated by the program. If the program is also vulnerable to path manipulation, an attacker may use this vulnerability to access arbitrary files on system.


String permissionMask = System.getProperty("defaultFileMask");
Path filePath = userFile.toPath();
...
Set<PosixFilePermission> perms = PosixFilePermissions.fromString(permissionMask);
Files.setPosixFilePermissions(filePath, perms);
...
References
[1] FIO01-J. Create files with appropriate access permissions CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 264, CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing user input to directly alter file permissions may enable an attacker to access otherwise protected system resources.
Explanation
File permission manipulation errors occur when any of the following conditions are met:

1. An attacker is able to specify a path used in an operation that modifies permissions on the file system.

2. An attacker is able to specify the permissions assigned by an operation on the file system.

Example: The following code is designed to set proper file permissions for users uploading Web pages through FTP. It uses input from an HTTP request to mark a file as viewable for external users.


$rName = $_GET['publicReport'];
chmod("/home/". authenticateUser . "/public_html/" . rName,"0755");
...


However, if an attacker provides a malicious value for publicReport, such as "../../localuser/public_html/.htpasswd", the application will make the specified file readable to the attacker.

Example 2: The following code uses input from a configuration file to set the default permission mask. If attackers can alter the configuration file, they can use the program to gain access to files manipulated by the program. If the program is also vulnerable to path manipulation, an attacker may use this vulnerability to access arbitrary files on system.


...
$mask = $CONFIG_TXT['perms'];
chmod($filename,$mask);
...
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 264, CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.php.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing user input to directly alter file permissions may enable an attacker to access otherwise protected system resources.
Explanation
File permission manipulation errors occur when any of the following conditions are met:

1. An attacker is able to specify a path used in an operation that modifies permissions on the file system.

2. An attacker is able to specify the permissions assigned by an operation on the file system.

Example 1: The following code uses input from system environment variables to set file permissions. If attackers can alter the system environment variables, they may use the program to gain access to files manipulated by the program. If the program is also vulnerable to path manipulation, an attacker may use this vulnerability to access arbitrary files on system.


permissions = os.getenv("filePermissions");
os.chmod(filePath, permissions);
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 264, CWE ID 732
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing user input to directly alter file permissions may enable an attacker to access otherwise protected system resources.
Explanation
File permission manipulation errors occur when any of the following conditions are met:

1. An attacker is able to specify a path used in an operation that modifies permissions on the file system.

2. An attacker is able to specify the permissions assigned by an operation on the file system.

Example: The following code is designed to set proper file permissions for users uploading Web pages through FTP. It uses input from an HTTP request to mark a file as viewable for external users.


...
rName = req['publicReport']
File.chmod("/home/#{authenticatedUser}/public_html/#{rName}", "0755")
...


However, if an attacker provides a malicious value for publicReport, such as "../../localuser/public_html/.htpasswd", the application will make the specified file readable to the attacker.

Example 2: The following code uses input from a configuration file to set the default permission mask. If attackers can alter the configuration file, they may use the program to gain access to files manipulated by the program. If the program is also vulnerable to path manipulation, an attacker may use this vulnerability to access arbitrary files on system.


...
mask = config_params['perms']
File.chmod(filename, mask)
...
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 264, CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.ruby.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
Debugging information helps attackers learn about the system and plan a form of attack.
Explanation
If you are using Blaze DS to perform logging of any unexpected events, the services-config.xml descriptor file specifies a "Logging" XML element to describe various aspects of logging. It looks like the following:

Example:

<logging>
<target class="flex.messaging.log.ConsoleTarget" level="Debug">
<properties>
<prefix>[BlazeDS]</prefix>
<includeDate>false</includeDate>
<includeTime>false</includeTime>
<includeLevel>false</includeLevel>
<includeCategory>false</includeCategory>
</properties>
<filters>
<pattern>Endpoint.*</pattern>
<pattern>Service.*</pattern>
<pattern>Configuration</pattern>
</filters>
</target>
</logging>


This target tag takes an optional attribute called level, which indicates the log level. If the debug level is set to too detailed a level, your application may write sensitive data to the log file.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 11
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001312, CCI-001314, CCI-002420, CCI-003272
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-11 Error Handling (P2)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-11 Error Handling
[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 - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[39] 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
[40] 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
[41] 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
[42] 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
[43] 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
[44] 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
[45] 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
[46] 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
[47] 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
[48] 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
[49] 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
[50] 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
[51] 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
[52] 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
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.config.java.flex_misconfiguration_debug_information
Abstract
Allowing an attacker to control a function's format string can result in a buffer overflow.
Explanation
Format string vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters the application from an untrusted source.



2. The data is passed as the format string argument to a function like sprintf(), FormatMessageW(), or syslog().
Example 1: The following code copies a command line argument into a buffer using snprintf().


int main(int argc, char **argv){
char buf[128];
...
snprintf(buf,128,argv[1]);
}


This code allows an attacker to view the contents of the stack and write to the stack using a command line argument containing a sequence of formatting directives. The attacker may read from the stack by providing more formatting directives, such as %x, than the function takes as arguments to be formatted. (In this example, the function takes no arguments to be formatted.) By using the %n formatting directive, the attacker may write to the stack, causing snprintf() to write the number of bytes output thus far to the specified argument (rather than reading a value from the argument, which is the intended behavior). A sophisticated version of this attack will use four staggered writes to completely control the value of a pointer on the stack.

Example 2: Certain implementations make more advanced attacks even easier by providing format directives that control the location in memory to read from or write to. An example of these directives is shown in the following code, written for glibc:


printf("%d %d %1$d %1$d\n", 5, 9);


This code produces the following output:


5 9 5 5


It is also possible to use half-writes (%hn) to accurately control arbitrary DWORDS in memory, which greatly reduces the complexity needed to execute an attack that would otherwise require four staggered writes, such as the one mentioned in Example 1.

Example 3: Simple format string vulnerabilities often result from seemingly innocuous shortcuts. The use of some such shortcuts is so ingrained that programmers might not even realize that the function they are using expects a format string argument.

For example, the syslog() function is sometimes used as follows:


...
syslog(LOG_ERR, cmdBuf);
...


Because the second parameter to syslog() is a format string, any formatting directives included in cmdBuf are interpreted as described in Example 1.

The following code shows a correct usage of syslog():


...
syslog(LOG_ERR, "%s", cmdBuf);
...
References
[1] T. Newsham Format String Attacks Guardent, Inc.
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 134
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754, CCI-002824
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1), SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation, SI-16 Memory Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.4.2 Memory/String/Unmanaged Code Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] 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
[32] 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
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 134
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Format String (WASC-06)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Format String Attack
desc.dataflow.cpp.format_string
Abstract
An attacker may control the format string argument allowing an attack much like a buffer overflow.
Explanation
Format string vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters the application from an untrusted source.



2. The data is passed as the format string argument to a function like sprintf(), FormatMessageW(), syslog(), NSLog, or NSString.stringWithFormatExample 1: The following code utilizes a command line argument as a format string in NSString.stringWithFormat:.


int main(int argc, char **argv){
char buf[128];
...
[NSString stringWithFormat:argv[1], argv[2] ];
}


This code allows an attacker to view the contents of the stack and corrupt the stack using a command line argument containing a sequence of formatting directives. The attacker may read from the stack by providing more formatting directives, such as %x, than the function takes as arguments to be formatted. (In this example, the function takes no arguments to be formatted.)

Objective-C supports the legacy C standard libraries so the following examples are exploitable if your application uses C APIs.

Example 2: Certain implementations make more advanced attacks even easier by providing format directives that control the location in memory to read from or write to. An example of these directives is shown in the following code, written for glibc:


printf("%d %d %1$d %1$d\n", 5, 9);


This code produces the following output:


5 9 5 5


It is also possible to use half-writes (%hn) to accurately control arbitrary DWORDS in memory, which greatly reduces the complexity needed to execute an attack that would otherwise require four staggered writes, such as the one mentioned in Example 1.

Example 3: Simple format string vulnerabilities often result from seemingly innocuous shortcuts. The use of some such shortcuts is so ingrained that programmers might not even realize that the function they are using expects a format string argument.

For example, the syslog() function is sometimes used as follows:


...
syslog(LOG_ERR, cmdBuf);
...


Because the second parameter to syslog() is a format string, any formatting directives included in cmdBuf are interpreted as described in Example 1.

The following code shows a correct usage of syslog():


...
syslog(LOG_ERR, "%s", cmdBuf);
...
Example 4: Apple core classes provide interesting avenues for exploiting format string vulnerabilities.

For example, the String.stringByAppendingFormat() function is sometimes used as follows:


...
NSString test = @"Sample Text.";
test = [test stringByAppendingFormat:[MyClass
formatInput:inputControl.text]];
...


stringByAppendingFormat will parse any format string characters contained within the NSString passed to it.

The following code shows a correct usage of stringByAppendingFormat():


...
NSString test = @"Sample Text.";
test = [test stringByAppendingFormat:@"%@", [MyClass
formatInput:inputControl.text]];
...
References
[1] T. Newsham Format String Attacks Guardent, Inc.
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 134
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754, CCI-002824
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1), SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation, SI-16 Memory Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.4.2 Memory/String/Unmanaged Code Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] 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
[32] 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
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 134
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Format String (WASC-06)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Format String Attack
desc.dataflow.objc.format_string
Abstract
The program uses an improperly constructed format string that contains a different number of conversion specifiers than the function has arguments. Incorrect format strings can lead the program to read data outside the bounds of allocated memory, which can allow access to sensitive information, introduce incorrect behavior, or crash the program.
Explanation
Buffer overflow is probably the best known form of software security vulnerability. Most software developers know what a buffer overflow vulnerability is, but buffer overflow attacks against both legacy and newly-developed applications are still quite common. Part of the problem is due to the wide variety of ways buffer overflows can occur, and part is due to the error-prone techniques often used to prevent them.

In a classic buffer overflow exploit, the attacker sends data to a program, which it stores in an undersized stack buffer. The result is that information on the call stack is overwritten, including the function's return pointer. The data sets the value of the return pointer so that when the function returns, it transfers control to malicious code contained in the attacker's data.

Although this type of stack buffer overflow is still common on some platforms and in some development communities, there are a variety of other types of buffer overflow, including heap buffer overflows and off-by-one errors among others. There are a number of excellent books that provide detailed information on how buffer overflow attacks work, including Building Secure Software [1], Writing Secure Code [2], and The Shellcoder's Handbook [3].

At the code level, buffer overflow vulnerabilities usually involve the violation of a programmer's assumptions. Many memory manipulation functions in C and C++ do not perform bounds checking and can easily exceed the allocated bounds of the buffers they operate upon. Even bounded functions, such as strncpy(), can cause vulnerabilities when used incorrectly. The combination of memory manipulation and mistaken assumptions about the size or makeup of a piece of data is the root cause of most buffer overflows.

In this case, an improperly constructed format string causes the program to access values outside the bounds of allocated memory.

Example: The following reads arbitrary values from the stack because the number of format specifiers does not align with the number of arguments passed to the function.

void wrongNumberArgs(char *s, float f, int d) {
char buf[1024];
sprintf(buf, "Wrong number of %.512s");
}
References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[3] J. Koziol et al. The Shellcoder's Handbook: Discovering and Exploiting Security Holes John Wiley & Sons
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 126
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [1] CWE ID 119, [5] CWE ID 125
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [5] CWE ID 119, [4] CWE ID 125
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [3] CWE ID 125, [17] CWE ID 119
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [5] CWE ID 125, [19] CWE ID 119
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [7] CWE ID 125, [17] CWE ID 119
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002824
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-16 Memory Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 119
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Format String (WASC-06)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Format String Attack
desc.internal.cpp.format_string_argument_number_mismatch
Abstract
The program uses an improperly constructed format string that contains conversion specifiers that do not align with the types of the arguments passed to the function. Incorrect format strings can lead the program to convert values incorrectly and potentially read or write outside the bounds of allocated memory, which can introduce incorrect behavior or crash the program.
Explanation
Buffer overflow is probably the best known form of software security vulnerability. Most software developers know what a buffer overflow vulnerability is, but buffer overflow attacks against both legacy and newly-developed applications are still quite common. Part of the problem is due to the wide variety of ways buffer overflows can occur, and part is due to the error-prone techniques often used to prevent them.

In a classic buffer overflow exploit, the attacker sends data to a program, which it stores in an undersized stack buffer. The result is that information on the call stack is overwritten, including the function's return pointer. The data sets the value of the return pointer so that when the function returns, it transfers control to malicious code contained in the attacker's data.

Although this type of stack buffer overflow is still common on some platforms and in some development communities, there are a variety of other types of buffer overflow, including heap buffer overflows and off-by-one errors among others. There are a number of excellent books that provide detailed information on how buffer overflow attacks work, including Building Secure Software [1], Writing Secure Code [2], and The Shellcoder's Handbook [3].

At the code level, buffer overflow vulnerabilities usually involve the violation of a programmer's assumptions. Many memory manipulation functions in C and C++ do not perform bounds checking and can easily exceed the allocated bounds of the buffers they operate upon. Even bounded functions, such as strncpy(), can cause vulnerabilities when used incorrectly. The combination of memory manipulation and mistaken assumptions about the size or makeup of a piece of data is the root cause of most buffer overflows.

In this case, an improperly constructed format string causes the program to improperly convert data values or to access values outside the bounds of allocated memory.

Example: The following code incorrectly converts f from a float using a %d format specifier.


void ArgTypeMismatch(float f, int d, char *s, wchar *ws) {
char buf[1024];
sprintf(buf, "Wrong type of %d", f);
...
}
References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[3] J. Koziol et al. The Shellcoder's Handbook: Discovering and Exploiting Security Holes John Wiley & Sons
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 125, CWE ID 787
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [1] CWE ID 119, [5] CWE ID 125, [12] CWE ID 787
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [5] CWE ID 119, [4] CWE ID 125, [2] CWE ID 787
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [1] CWE ID 787, [3] CWE ID 125, [17] CWE ID 119
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [1] CWE ID 787, [5] CWE ID 125, [19] CWE ID 119
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [1] CWE ID 787, [7] CWE ID 125, [17] CWE ID 119
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002824
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 10.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 5-0-3
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-16 Memory Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 119
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Format String (WASC-06)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Format String Attack
desc.internal.cpp.format_string_argument_type_mismatch
Abstract
Including a script from another domain means that the security of this web page is dependent on the security of the other domain.
Explanation
Including executable content from another web site is a risky proposition. It ties the security of your site to the security of the other site.

Example: Consider the following script tag.

<script src="http://www.example.com/js/fancyWidget.js"></script>


If this tag appears on a web site other than www.example.com, then the site is dependent upon www.example.com to serve up correct and non-malicious code. If attackers can compromise www.example.com, then they can alter the contents of fancyWidget.js to subvert the security of the site. They could, for example, add code to fancyWidget.js to steal a user's confidential data.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 494, CWE ID 829
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.3.9 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.6 File Execution Requirements (L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.4 Dependency (L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M7 Insufficient Binary Protections
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M7 Insufficient Binary Protections
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[16] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Process Validation (WASC-40)
[32] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Process Validation
desc.content.html.hardcoded_domain
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


...
author = request->get_form_field( 'author' ).
response->set_cookie( name = 'author' value = author ).
...


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.abap.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation, or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently in an HTTP request.


2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n) characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example 1: The following code sets an HTTP header whose name and value could be controlled by an attacker:


@HttpGet
global static void doGet() {
...
Map<String, String> params = ApexPages.currentPage().getParameters();

RestResponse res = RestContext.response;
res.addHeader(params.get('name'), params.get('value'));
...
}


Assuming a name/value pair consisting of author and Jane Smith, the HTTP response including this header might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
author:Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the header is formed from unvalidated user input, an attacker might submit a malicious name/value pair, such as HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...foo and bar, then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
foo:bar


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker can make a single request to a vulnerable server that causes the server to create two responses, the second of which might be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker might leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker might provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: After attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker might cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks such as Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers might change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.apex.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers and frameworks will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Microsoft's .NET framework will convert CR, LF, and NULL characters to %0d, %0a and %00 when they are sent to the HttpResponse.AddHeader() method. If you are using the latest .NET framework that prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application might not be vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


protected System.Web.UI.WebControls.TextBox Author;
...
string author = Author.Text;
Cookie cookie = new Cookie("author", author);
...


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for Author.Text does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.dotnet.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement or page hijacking attacks.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated for malicious characters.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTML form and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


...
EXEC CICS
WEB READ
FORMFIELD(NAME)
VALUE(AUTHOR)
...
END-EXEC.

EXEC CICS
WEB WRITE
HTTPHEADER(COOKIE)
VALUE(AUTHOR)
...
END-EXEC.
...


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.cobol.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently a web request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from a web form and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


<cfcookie name = "author"
value = "#Form.author#"
expires = "NOW">


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1/1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the sever to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the sever. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response an executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] Amit Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] Diabolic Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.cfml.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without validation.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the 'content-type' from an HTTP request and sets it in a header of an new HTTP request.


final server = await HttpServer.bind('localhost', 18081);
server.listen((request) async {
final headers = request.headers;
final contentType = headers.value('content-type');
final client = HttpClient();
final clientRequest = await client.getUrl(Uri.parse('https://example.com'));
clientRequest.headers.add('Content-Type', contentType as Object);
});


Because the value of the 'Content-Type' header is formed of unvalidated user input, it can be manipulated by malicious actors to exploit vulnerabilities, execute code injection attacks, expose sensitive data, enable malicious file execution, or trigger denial of service situations, posing significant risks to the application's security and stability.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.dart.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation, or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.


Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


...
author := request.FormValue("AUTHOR_PARAM")
cookie := http.Cookie{
Name: "author",
Value: author,
Domain: "www.example.com",
}
http.SetCookie(w, &cookie)
...


The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker can make a single request to a vulnerable server that causes the server to create two responses, the second of which can be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker might leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker might provide especially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance is affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: After attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker might cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers can change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] 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
[34] 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
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.golang.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


String author = request.getParameter(AUTHOR_PARAM);
...
Cookie cookie = new Cookie("author", author);
cookie.setMaxAge(cookieExpiration);
response.addCookie(cookie);


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.java.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


author = form.author.value;
...
document.cookie = "author=" + author + ";expires="+cookieExpiration;
...


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.


Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like cross-site request forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.javascript.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.


2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n) characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment assumes name and value may be controlled by an attacker. The code sets an HTTP header whose name and value may be controlled by an attacker:


...
NSURLSessionConfiguration * config = [[NSURLSessionConfiguration alloc] init];
NSMutableDictionary *dict = @{};
[dict setObject:value forKey:name];
[config setHTTPAdditionalHeaders:dict];
...


Assuming a name/value pair consisting of author and Jane Smith, the HTTP response including this header might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
author:Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the header is formed of unvalidated user input, an attacker may submit a malicious name/value pair, such as HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...foo and bar, then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
foo:bar


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.objc.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of PHP will generate a warning and stop header creation when new lines are passed to the header() function. If your version of PHP prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the location from an HTTP request and sets it in the header location field of an HTTP response.


<?php
$location = $_GET['some_location'];
...
header("location: $location");
?>


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "index.html", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
location: index.html
...


However, because the value of the location is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for some_location does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "index.html\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
location: index.html

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.php.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


...
-- Assume QUERY_STRING looks like AUTHOR_PARAM=Name
author := SUBSTR(OWA_UTIL.get_cgi_env('QUERY_STRING'), 14);
OWA_UTIL.mime_header('text/html', false);
OWA_COOKE.send('author', author);
OWA_UTIL.http_header_close;
...


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.sql.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the location from an HTTP request and sets it in a the header its location field of an HTTP response.


location = req.field('some_location')
...
response.addHeader("location",location)


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "index.html", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
location: index.html
...


However, because the value of the location is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for some_location does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "index.html\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
location: index.html

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide especially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.python.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and uses this in a get request to another part of the site.


author = req.params[AUTHOR_PARAM]
http = Net::HTTP.new(URI("http://www.mysite.com"))
http.post('/index.php', "author=#{author}")


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith" is submitted in the request, the HTTP response might take the following form:


POST /index.php HTTP/1.1
Host: www.mysite.com
author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the URL is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nPOST /index.php HTTP/1.1\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


POST /index.php HTTP/1.1
Host: www.mysite.com
author=Wiley Hacker

POST /index.php HTTP/1.1
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.ruby.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, Play Framework will throw an exception if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.scala.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.


2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n) characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment assumes name and value may be controlled by an attacker. The code sets an HTTP header whose name and value may be controlled by an attacker:


...
var headers = []
headers[name] = value
let config = NSURLSessionConfiguration.backgroundSessionConfigurationWithIdentifier("com.acme")
config.HTTPAdditionalHeaders = headers
...


Assuming a name/value pair consisting of author and Jane Smith, the HTTP response including this header might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
author:Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the header is formed of unvalidated user input, an attacker may submit a malicious name/value pair, such as HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...foo and bar, then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
foo:bar


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.swift.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers, however, servers that support classic ASP often do not have that protection mechanism.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


...
author = Request.Form(AUTHOR_PARAM)
Response.Cookies("author") = author
Response.Cookies("author").Expires = cookieExpiration
...


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.vb.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in Cookies can lead to HTTP Response header manipulation and enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP cookie sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, cookie manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP cookie.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Being an HTTP Response header, Cookie manipulation attacks can also lead to other types of attacks like:

HTTP Response Splitting:
One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


...
author = request->get_form_field( 'author' ).
response->set_cookie( name = 'author' value = author ).
...


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.abap.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in Cookies can lead to HTTP Response header manipulation and enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation, or open redirect.
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently in an HTTP request.



2. The data is included in an HTTP cookie sent to a web user without being validated.



As with many software security vulnerabilities, cookie manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP cookie.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks such as cross-site request forgery, attackers might change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Being an HTTP Response header, Cookie manipulation attacks can also lead to other types of attacks such as:

HTTP Response Splitting:
One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example 1: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


...
Cookie cookie = new Cookie('author', author, '/', -1, false);
ApexPages.currentPage().setCookies(new Cookie[] {cookie});
...


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for author does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker can make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.apex.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in Cookies can lead to HTTP Response header manipulation and enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP cookie sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, cookie manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP cookie.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Being an HTTP Response header, cookie manipulation attacks can also lead to other types of attacks like:

HTTP Response Splitting:
One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


protected System.Web.UI.WebControls.TextBox Author;
...
string author = Author.Text;
Cookie cookie = new Cookie("author", author);
...


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.dotnet.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in Cookies can lead to HTTP Response header manipulation and enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP cookie sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, cookie manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP cookie.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Being an HTTP Response header, Cookie manipulation attacks can also lead to other types of attacks like:

HTTP Response Splitting:
One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


<cfcookie name = "author"
value = "#Form.author#"
expires = "NOW">


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] Amit Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] Diabolic Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.cfml.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in Cookies can lead to HTTP Response header manipulation and enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation, or open redirect.
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP cookie sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, cookie manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP cookie.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers can change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Being an HTTP Response header, cookie manipulation attacks can also lead to other types of attacks like:

HTTP Response Splitting:
One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n) characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


...
author := request.FormValue("AUTHOR_PARAM")
cookie := http.Cookie{
Name: "author",
Value: author,
Domain: "www.example.com",
}
http.SetCookie(w, &cookie)
...


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response only maintains this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response is split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker can make a single request to a vulnerable server that causes the server to create two responses, the second of which can be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker might leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker might provide especially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance is affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: After attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a variety of malicious content they can provide to users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, an attacker can leverage the same root vulnerability to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker can cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.golang.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in Cookies can lead to HTTP Response header manipulation and enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP cookie sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, cookie manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP cookie.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Being an HTTP Response header, cookie manipulation attacks can also lead to other types of attacks like:

HTTP Response Splitting:
One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example 1: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


String author = request.getParameter(AUTHOR_PARAM);
...
Cookie cookie = new Cookie("author", author);
cookie.setMaxAge(cookieExpiration);
response.addCookie(cookie);


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Some think that in the mobile world, classic web application vulnerabilities, such as header and cookie manipulation, do not make sense -- why would the user attack themself? However, keep in mind that the essence of mobile platforms is applications that are downloaded from various sources and run alongside each other on the same device. The likelihood of running a piece of malware next to a banking application is high, which necessitates expanding the attack surface of mobile applications to include inter-process communication.

Example 2: The following code adapts Example 1 to the Android platform.


...
CookieManager webCookieManager = CookieManager.getInstance();
String author = this.getIntent().getExtras().getString(AUTHOR_PARAM);
String setCookie = "author=" + author + "; max-age=" + cookieExpiration;
webCookieManager.setCookie(url, setCookie);

...
Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.java.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in Cookies can lead to HTTP Response header manipulation and enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP cookie sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, cookie manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP cookie.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like cross-site request forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Being an HTTP Response header, Cookie manipulation attacks can also lead to other types of attacks like:

HTTP Response Splitting:
One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


author = form.author.value;
...
document.cookie = "author=" + author + ";expires="+cookieExpiration;
...


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker can make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.javascript.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in Cookies can lead to HTTP Response header manipulation and enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP cookie sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, cookie manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP cookie.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Being an HTTP Response header, Cookie manipulation attacks can also lead to other types of attacks like:

HTTP Response Splitting:
One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


<?php
$author = $_GET['AUTHOR_PARAM'];
...
header("author: $author");
?>


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.php.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an HTTP response header can enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP response header sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP response header.

One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the location from an HTTP request and sets it in a the header its location field of an HTTP response.


location = req.field('some_location')
...
response.addHeader("location",location)


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "index.html", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
location: index.html
...


However, because the value of the location is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for some_location does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "index.html\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
location: index.html

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide especially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.python.header_manipulation
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in Cookies can lead to HTTP Response header manipulation and enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP cookie sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, cookie manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP cookie.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Being an HTTP Response header, cookie manipulation attacks can also lead to other types of attacks like:

HTTP Response Splitting:
One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.scala.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in Cookies can lead to HTTP Response header manipulation and enable cache-poisoning, cross-site scripting, cross-user defacement, page hijacking, cookie manipulation or open redirect.
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request.

2. The data is included in an HTTP cookie sent to a web user without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, cookie manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an HTTP cookie.

Cookie Manipulation: When combined with attacks like Cross-Site Request Forgery, attackers may change, add to, or even overwrite a legitimate user's cookies.

Being an HTTP Response header, Cookie manipulation attacks can also lead to other types of attacks like:

HTTP Response Splitting:
One of the most common Header Manipulation attacks is HTTP Response Splitting. To mount a successful HTTP Response Splitting exploit, the application must allow input that contains CR (carriage return, also given by %0d or \r) and LF (line feed, also given by %0a or \n)characters into the header. These characters not only give attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response the application intends to send, but also allows them to create additional responses entirely under their control.

Many of today's modern application servers will prevent the injection of malicious characters into HTTP headers. For example, recent versions of Apache Tomcat will throw an IllegalArgumentException if you attempt to set a header with prohibited characters. If your application server prevents setting headers with new line characters, then your application is not vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting. However, solely filtering for new line characters can leave an application vulnerable to Cookie Manipulation or Open Redirects, so care must still be taken when setting HTTP headers with user input.

Example: The following code segment reads the name of the author of a weblog entry, author, from an HTTP request and sets it in a cookie header of an HTTP response.


...
author = Request.Form(AUTHOR_PARAM)
Response.Cookies("author") = author
Response.Cookies("author").Expires = cookieExpiration
...


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Jane Smith", is submitted in the request the HTTP response including this cookie might take the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


However, because the value of the cookie is formed of unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for AUTHOR_PARAM does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...", then the HTTP response would be split into two responses of the following form:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


Clearly, the second response is completely controlled by the attacker and can be constructed with any header and body content desired. The ability of attacker to construct arbitrary HTTP responses permits a variety of resulting attacks, including: cross-user defacement, web and browser cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and page hijacking.

Cross-User Defacement: An attacker will be able to make a single request to a vulnerable server that will cause the server to create two responses, the second of which may be misinterpreted as a response to a different request, possibly one made by another user sharing the same TCP connection with the server. This can be accomplished by convincing the user to submit the malicious request themselves, or remotely in situations where the attacker and the user share a common TCP connection to the server, such as a shared proxy server. In the best case, an attacker may leverage this ability to convince users that the application has been hacked, causing users to lose confidence in the security of the application. In the worst case, an attacker may provide specially crafted content designed to mimic the behavior of the application but redirect private information, such as account numbers and passwords, back to the attacker.

Cache Poisoning: The impact of a maliciously constructed response can be magnified if it is cached either by a web cache used by multiple users or even the browser cache of a single user. If a response is cached in a shared web cache, such as those commonly found in proxy servers, then all users of that cache will continue receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged. Similarly, if the response is cached in the browser of an individual user, then that user will continue to receive the malicious content until the cache entry is purged, although only the user of the local browser instance will be affected.

Cross-Site Scripting: Once attackers have control of the responses sent by an application, they have a choice of a variety of malicious content to provide users. Cross-site scripting is common form of attack where malicious JavaScript or other code included in a response is executed in the user's browser. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. The most common and dangerous attack vector against users of a vulnerable application uses JavaScript to transmit session and authentication information back to the attacker who can then take complete control of the victim's account.

Page Hijacking: In addition to using a vulnerable application to send malicious content to a user, the same root vulnerability can also be leveraged to redirect sensitive content generated by the server and intended for the user to the attacker instead. By submitting a request that results in two responses, the intended response from the server and the response generated by the attacker, an attacker may cause an intermediate node, such as a shared proxy server, to misdirect a response generated by the server for the user to the attacker. Because the request made by the attacker generates two responses, the first is interpreted as a response to the attacker's request, while the second remains in limbo. When the user makes a legitimate request through the same TCP connection, the attacker's request is already waiting and is interpreted as a response to the victim's request. The attacker then sends a second request to the server, to which the proxy server responds with the server generated request intended for the victim, thereby compromising any sensitive information in the headers or body of the response intended for the victim.

Open Redirect: Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.vb.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
The target application unsafely constructs and saves an email over the Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP), potentially allowing for an injection attack.
Explanation
The Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) is used to retreive emails from an authenticated mailbox. An extension of this protocol allows an application to construct emails and upload them to an authenticated mailbox (e.g. the Drafts folder), and later send them using the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP). In this scenario, if unvalidated user input is passed to certain IMAP functions, it may be possible to inject information into email headers. An attacker can use this vulnerability to inject additional recipients for an email (via the addition of Carriage-Return and Line-Feed (CRLF) characters), allowing the target application to be used to send spam emails that cannot easily be traced back to the attacker.
References
[1] IMAPProtocol (JavaMail API Documentation) Carnegie Mellon University
[2] Email Header Injection Security Cake Solutions
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 93
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dynamic.xtended_preview.header_manipulation_imap
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an SMTP header can enable attackers to add arbitrary headers, such as CC or BCC that they can use to leak the mail contents to themselves or use the mail server as a spam bot.
Explanation
SMTP Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters an application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request in a web application.

2. The data is included in an SMTP header sent to a mail server without validation.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, SMTP Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an SMTP header.

One of the most common SMTP Header Manipulation attacks is to distribute spam emails. If an application contains a vulnerable "Contact us" form that allows setting the subject and the body of the email, an attacker can set any arbitrary content and inject a CC header with a list of email addresses to spam anonymously because the email is sent from the victim's server.

Example: The following code segment reads the subject and body of a "Contact us" form:


func handler(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
subject := r.FormValue("subject")
body := r.FormValue("body")
auth := smtp.PlainAuth("identity", "user@example.com", "password", "mail.example.com")
to := []string{"recipient@example.net"}
msg := []byte("To: " + recipient1 + "\r\n" + subject + "\r\n" + body + "\r\n")
err := smtp.SendMail("mail.example.com:25", auth, "sender@example.org", to, msg)
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
}


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Page not working" is submitted in the request, the SMTP headers might take the following form:


...
subject: [Contact us query] Page not working
...


However, because the value of the header is constructed from unvalidated user input the response only maintains this form if the value submitted for subject does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Congratulations!! You won the lottery!!!\r\ncc:victim1@mail.com,victim2@mail.com ...", then the SMTP headers would be of the following form:


...
subject: [Contact us query] Congratulations!! You won the lottery
cc: victim1@mail.com,victim2@mail.com
...


This effectively enables an attacker to craft spam messages or to send anonymous emails amongst other attacks.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 93
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] 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
[34] 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
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.golang.header_manipulation_smtp
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an SMTP header can enable attackers to add arbitrary headers, such as CC or BCC that they can use to leak the mail contents to themselves or use the mail server as a spam bot.
Explanation
SMTP Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters an application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request in a web application.

2. The data is included in an SMTP header sent to a mail server without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, SMTP Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an SMTP header.

One of the most common SMTP Header Manipulation attacks is used for distributing spam emails. If an application contains a vulnerable "Contact us" form that allows setting the subject and the body of the email, an attacker will be able to set any arbitrary content and inject a CC header with a list of email addresses to spam anonymously since the email will be sent from the victim server.

Example: The following code segment reads the subject and body of a "Contact us" form:


String subject = request.getParameter("subject");
String body = request.getParameter("body");
MimeMessage message = new MimeMessage(session);
message.setFrom(new InternetAddress("webform@acme.com"));
message.setRecipients(Message.RecipientType.TO, InternetAddress.parse("support@acme.com"));
message.setSubject("[Contact us query] " + subject);
message.setText(body);
Transport.send(message);


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Page not working" is submitted in the request, the SMTP headers might take the following form:


...
subject: [Contact us query] Page not working
...


However, because the value of the header is constructed from unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for subject does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Congratulations!! You won the lottery!!!\r\ncc:victim1@mail.com,victim2@mail.com ...", then the SMTP headers would be of the following form:


...
subject: [Contact us query] Congratulations!! You won the lottery
cc: victim1@mail.com,victim2@mail.com
...


This will effectively allow an attacker to craft spam messages or to send anonymous emails amongst other attacks.
References
[1] OWASP Testing for IMAP/SMTP Injection (OTG-INPVAL-011)
[2] Vicente Aguilera Díaz MX Injection: Capturing and Exploiting Hidden Mail Servers
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 93
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.java.header_manipulation_smtp
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an SMTP header can enable attackers to add arbitrary headers, such as CC or BCC that they can use to leak the mail contents to themselves or use the mail server as a spam bot.
Explanation
SMTP Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters an application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request in a web application.

2. The data is included in an SMTP header sent to a mail server without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, SMTP Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an SMTP header.

One of the most common SMTP Header Manipulation attacks is for the use of distributing spam emails. If an application contains a vulnerable "Contact us" form that allows setting the subject and the body of the email, an attacker will be able to set any arbitrary content and inject a CC header with a list of email addresses to spam anonymously since the email will be sent from the victim server.

Example: The following code segment reads the subject and body of a "Contact us" form:


$subject = $_GET['subject'];
$body = $_GET['body'];
mail("support@acme.com", "[Contact us query] " . $subject, $body);


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Page not working" is submitted in the request, the SMTP headers might take the following form:


...
subject: [Contact us query] Page not working
...


However, because the value of the header is constructed from unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for subject does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Congratulations!! You won the lottery!!!\r\ncc:victim1@mail.com,victim2@mail.com ...", then the SMTP headers would be of the following form:


...
subject: [Contact us query] Congratulations!! You won the lottery
cc: victim1@mail.com,victim2@mail.com
...


This will effectively allow an attacker to craft spam messages or to send anonymous emails amongst other attacks.
References
[1] OWASP Testing for IMAP/SMTP Injection (OTG-INPVAL-011)
[2] Vicente Aguilera Díaz MX Injection: Capturing and Exploiting Hidden Mail Servers
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 93
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.php.header_manipulation_smtp
Abstract
Including unvalidated data in an SMTP header can enable attackers to add arbitrary headers, such as CC or BCC that they can use to leak the mail contents to themselves or use the mail server as a spam bot.
Explanation
SMTP Header Manipulation vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters an application through an untrusted source, most frequently an HTTP request in a web application.

2. The data is included in an SMTP header sent to a mail server without being validated.

As with many software security vulnerabilities, SMTP Header Manipulation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to a vulnerable application, and the application includes the data in an SMTP header.

One of the most common SMTP Header Manipulation attacks is for the use of distributing spam emails. If an application contains a vulnerable "Contact us" form that allows setting the subject and the body of the email, an attacker will be able to set any arbitrary content and inject a CC header with a list of email addresses to spam anonymously since the email will be sent from the victim server.

Example: The following code segment reads the subject and body of a "Contact us" form:


body = request.GET['body']
subject = request.GET['subject']
session = smtplib.SMTP(smtp_server, smtp_tls_port)
session.ehlo()
session.starttls()
session.login(username, password)
headers = "\r\n".join(["from: webform@acme.com",
"subject: [Contact us query] " + subject,
"to: support@acme.com",
"mime-version: 1.0",
"content-type: text/html"])
content = headers + "\r\n\r\n" + body
session.sendmail("webform@acme.com", "support@acme.com", content)


Assuming a string consisting of standard alphanumeric characters, such as "Page not working" is submitted in the request, the SMTP headers might take the following form:


...
subject: [Contact us query] Page not working
...


However, because the value of the header is constructed from unvalidated user input the response will only maintain this form if the value submitted for subject does not contain any CR and LF characters. If an attacker submits a malicious string, such as "Congratulations!! You won the lottery!!!\r\ncc:victim1@mail.com,victim2@mail.com ...", then the SMTP headers would be of the following form:


...
subject: [Contact us query] Congratulations!! You won the lottery
cc: victim1@mail.com,victim2@mail.com
...


This will effectively allow an attacker to craft spam messages or to send anonymous emails amongst other attacks.
References
[1] OWASP Testing for IMAP/SMTP Injection (OTG-INPVAL-011)
[2] Vicente Aguilera Díaz MX Injection: Capturing and Exploiting Hidden Mail Servers
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 93
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.python.header_manipulation_smtp
Abstract
Concatenating unvalidated input into a URL can allow an attacker to override the value of a request parameter. Attacker may be able to override existing parameter values, inject a new parameter or exploit variables out of a direct reach.
Explanation
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) attacks consist of injecting encoded query string delimiters into other existing parameters. If a web application does not properly sanitize the user input, a malicious user may compromise the logic of the application to perform either client-side or server-side attacks. By submitting additional parameters to a web application, and if these parameters have the same name as an existing parameter, the web application may react in one of the following ways:

It may only take the data from the first parameter
It may take the data from the last parameter
It may take the data from all parameters and concatenate them together


For example:
- ASP.NET/IIS uses all occurrences of the parameters
- Apache Tomcat uses only the first occurrence and ignores others
- mod_perl/Apache converts the value into an array of values

Example 1: Depending on the application server and the logic of the application itself, the following request might cause confusion to the authentication system and allow an attacker to impersonate another user.
http://www.server.com/login.aspx?name=alice&name=hacker

Example 2: The following code uses input from an HTTP request to render two hyperlinks.

...
String lang = Request.Form["lang"];
WebClient client = new WebClient();
client.BaseAddress = url;
NameValueCollection myQueryStringCollection = new NameValueCollection();
myQueryStringCollection.Add("q", lang);
client.QueryString = myQueryStringCollection;
Stream data = client.OpenRead(url);
...


URL: http://www.host.com/election.aspx?poll_id=4567
Link1: <a href="http://www.host.com/vote.aspx?poll_id=4567&lang=en">English<a>
Link2: <a href="http://www.host.com/vote.aspx?poll_id=4567&lang=es">Spanish<a>

The programmer has not considered the possibility that an attacker could provide a lang such as en&poll_id=1, and then the attacker may be able to change the poll_id at will.
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] 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
[32] 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
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
Concatenating unvalidated input into a URL can allow an attacker to override the value of a request parameter. Attacker may be able to override existing parameter values, inject a new parameter or exploit variables out of a direct reach.
Explanation
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) attacks consist of injecting encoded query string delimiters into other existing parameters. If a web application does not properly sanitize the user input, a malicious user may compromise the logic of the application to perform either client-side or server-side attacks. By submitting additional parameters to a web application, and if these parameters have the same name as an existing parameter, the web application may react in one of the following ways:

It may only take the data from the first parameter
It may take the data from the last parameter
It may take the data from all parameters and concatenate them together


For example:
- ASP.NET/IIS uses all occurrences of the parameters
- Apache Tomcat uses only the first occurrence and ignores others
- mod_perl/Apache converts the value into an array of values

Example 1: Depending on the application server and the logic of the application itself, the following request might cause confusion to the authentication system and allow an attacker to impersonate another user.
http://www.example.com/login.php?name=alice&name=hacker

Example 2: The following code uses input from an HTTP request to render two hyperlinks.

...
String lang = request.getParameter("lang");
GetMethod get = new GetMethod("http://www.example.com");
get.setQueryString("lang=" + lang + "&poll_id=" + poll_id);
get.execute();
...


URL: http://www.example.com?poll_id=4567
Link1: <a href="http://www.example.com/vote.php?lang=en&poll_id=4567">English<a>
Link2: <a href="http://www.example.com/vote.php?lang=es&poll_id=4567">Spanish<a>

The programmer has not considered the possibility that an attacker could provide a lang such as en&poll_id=1, and then the attacker will be able to change the poll_id at will.
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] 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
[32] 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
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
Concatenating unvalidated input into a URL can allow an attacker to override the value of a request parameter. Attacker may be able to override existing parameter values, inject a new parameter or exploit variables out of a direct reach.
Explanation
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) attacks consist of injecting encoded query string delimiters into other existing parameters. If a web application does not properly sanitize the user input, a malicious user may compromise the logic of the application to perform either client-side or server-side attacks. By submitting additional parameters to a web application, and if these parameters have the same name as an existing parameter, the web application may react in one of the following ways:

It may only take the data from the first parameter
It may take the data from the last parameter
It may take the data from all parameters and concatenate them together


For example:
- ASP.NET/IIS uses all occurrences of the parameters
- Apache Tomcat uses only the first occurrence and ignores others
- mod_perl/Apache converts the value into an array of values

Example 1: Depending on the application server and the logic of the application itself, the following request might cause confusion to the authentication system and allow an attacker to impersonate another user.
http://www.server.com/login.php?name=alice&name=hacker

Example 2: The following code uses input from an HTTP request to render two hyperlinks.


<%
...
$id = $_GET["id"];
header("Location: http://www.host.com/election.php?poll_id=" . $id);
...
%>


URL: http://www.host.com/election.php?poll_id=4567
Link1: <a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=white">Vote for Mr. White<a>
Link2: <a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=green">Vote for Mrs. Green<a>

The programmer has not considered the possibility that an attacker could provide a poll_id such as "4567&candidate=green", and then the resulting page will contain the following injected links and hence Mrs. Green will always be voted on an application server which picks the first parameter.
<a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=green&candidate=white">Vote for Mr. White<a>
<a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=green&candidate=green">Vote for Mrs. Green<a>
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] 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
[32] 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
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.php.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
Concatenating unvalidated input into a URL can allow an attacker to override the value of a request parameter. Attacker may be able to override existing parameter values, inject a new parameter or exploit variables out of a direct reach.
Explanation
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) attacks consist of injecting encoded query string delimiters into other existing parameters. If a web application does not properly sanitize the user input, a malicious user may compromise the logic of the application to perform either client-side or server-side attacks. By submitting additional parameters to a web application, and if these parameters have the same name as an existing parameter, the web application may react in one of the following ways:

It may only take the data from the first parameter.
It may take the data from the last parameter.
It may take the data from all parameters and concatenate them together.


For example:
- ASP.NET/IIS uses all occurrences of the parameters
- Apache Tomcat uses only the first occurrence and ignores others
- mod_perl/Apache converts the value into an array of values

Example 1: Depending on the application server and the logic of the application itself, the following request might cause confusion to the authentication system and allow an attacker to impersonate another user.
http://www.server.com/login.php?name=alice&name=hacker

As this shows, the attacker already has name=alice specified, but they've added an additional name=alice&, and if this is being used on a server that takes the first occurrence, then this may impersonate alice in order to get further information regarding her account.
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] 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
[32] 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
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.ruby.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
The application allows third party keyboard extensions to be installed.
Explanation
Keyboard extensions are allowed to read every single keystroke that a user enters. Third-party keyboards are normally used to ease the text input or to add additional emojis and they may log what the user enters or even send it to a remote server for processing. Malicious keyboards can also be distributed to act as a keylogger and read every key entered by the user in order to steal sensitive data such as credentials or credit card numbers.
References
[1] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[2] UIApplicationDelegate Apple
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 522, CWE ID 829
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 522
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [21] CWE ID 522
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.3 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.9 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 12.3.6 File Execution Requirements (L2 L3), 14.2.4 Dependency (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-3
desc.structural.objc.input_interception_keyboard_extensions_allowed
Abstract
The application allows third party keyboard extensions to be installed.
Explanation
Keyboard extensions are allowed to read every single keystroke that a user enters. Third-party keyboards are normally used to ease the text input or to add additional emojis and they may log what the user enters or even send it to a remote server for processing. Malicious keyboards can also be distributed to act as a keylogger and read every key entered by the user in order to steal sensitive data such as credentials or credit card numbers.
References
[1] UIApplicationDelegate Apple
[2] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 522, CWE ID 829
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 522
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [21] CWE ID 522
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.3 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.9 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 12.3.6 File Execution Requirements (L2 L3), 14.2.4 Dependency (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-3
desc.structural.swift.input_interception_keyboard_extensions_allowed
Abstract
The program uses Android's backup service to save persistent application data to a remote cloud storage.
Explanation
Android's backup service allows the application to save persistent data to a remote cloud storage in order to provide a restore point for the application data in the future.

Android applications can be configured with this backup service by setting the allowBackup attribute to true (the default value) and defining the backupAgent attribute on the <application> tag.

Android however, does not guarantee the security of your data while using backup, as the cloud storage and transport vary from device to device.
References
[1] JavaDoc for Android Android
[2] Android Developers API Guide: Data Backup Android
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 312, CWE ID 359, CWE ID 921
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002475
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.1.1 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.2 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.3 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3), 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.1 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.config.java.insecure_storage_android_backup_storage
Abstract
The program writes data to the Android device's external storage.
Explanation
Files saved to the external storage are world-readable and can be modified by the user when they enable USB mass storage to transfer files on a computer. Also, files on the external storage card will remain there even after the application that wrote the files is uninstalled. These limitations can compromise sensitive information written out to storage or allow attackers to inject malicious data into the program by modifying an external file it relies on.

Example 1: In the following code, Environment.getExternalStorageDirectory() returns a reference to the Android device's external storage.

 private void WriteToFile(String what_to_write) {
try{
File root = Environment.getExternalStorageDirectory();
if(root.canWrite()) {
File dir = new File(root + "write_to_the_SDcard");
File datafile = new File(dir, number + ".extension");
FileWriter datawriter = new FileWriter(datafile);
BufferedWriter out = new BufferedWriter(datawriter);
out.write(what_to_write);
out.close();
}
}
}
References
[1] Data Storage
[2] Paul McNamara Latest 'lost' laptop holds treasure-trove of unencrypted ATT payroll data Network World
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 276, CWE ID 313, CWE ID 359, CWE ID 921
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [19] CWE ID 276, [20] CWE ID 200
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [20] CWE ID 276
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [25] CWE ID 276
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002475
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.1.1 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.2 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.3 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3), 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.1 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.insecure_storage_android_external_storage
Abstract
The application makes the data accessible to all applications on the Android device.
Explanation
Data stored on the Android internal storage using the MODE_WORLD_READBLE or MODE_WORLD_WRITEABLE is accessible to all applications on the device. This not only denies protection against data corruption but in case of sensitive information violates user privacy and security concerns.
References
[1] Designing for Security Android
[2] S. Fahl, M. Harbach, T. Muders, M. Smith, L. Baumgartner, B. Friesleben Why Eve and Mallory Love Android:An Analysis of Android SSL (In)Security
[3] OWASP Mobile Security Testing Guide OWASP
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 276, CWE ID 313, CWE ID 359, CWE ID 921
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [19] CWE ID 276, [20] CWE ID 200
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [20] CWE ID 276
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [25] CWE ID 276
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002475
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.1.1 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.2 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.3 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3), 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.1 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.structural.java.insecure_storage_android_world_readable_or_writeable
Abstract
The identified method stores data in the Keychain with an accessibility level that allows the item to be backed up to iCloud and unencrypted iTunes backups.
Explanation
When storing data into the Keychain, an accessibility level needs to be set up which defines when it will be possible to access the item. The possible accessibility levels include:

-kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlockThisDeviceOnly:
The data in the Keychain item cannot be accessed after a restart until the device has been unlocked once by the user.
After the first unlock, the data remains accessible until the next restart. This is recommended for items that need to be accessed by background applications. Items with this attribute do not migrate to a new device. Thus, after restoring from a backup of a different device, these items will not be present.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.

-kSecAttrAccessibleAlways:
The data in the Keychain item can always be accessed regardless of whether the device is locked.
This is not recommended for application use. Items with this attribute migrate to a new device when using encrypted backups.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.

-kSecAttrAccessibleWhenPasscodeSetThisDeviceOnly:
The data in the Keychain can only be accessed when the device is unlocked. Only available if a passcode is set on the device.
This is recommended for items that only need to be accessible while the application is in the foreground. Items with this attribute never migrate to a new device. After a backup is restored to a new device, these items are missing. No items can be stored in this class on devices without a passcode. Disabling the device passcode causes all items in this class to be deleted.
Available in iOS 8.0 and later.

-kSecAttrAccessibleAlwaysThisDeviceOnly:
The data in the Keychain item can always be accessed regardless of whether the device is locked.
This is not recommended for application use. Items with this attribute do not migrate to a new device. Thus, after restoring from a backup of a different device, these items will not be present.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.

-kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlocked:
The data in the Keychain item can be accessed only while the device is unlocked by the user.
This is recommended for items that need to be accessible only while the application is in the foreground. Items with this attribute migrate to a new device when using encrypted backups.
This is the default value for Keychain items added without explicitly setting an accessibility constant.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.

-kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly:
The data in the Keychain item can be accessed only while the device is unlocked by the user.
This is recommended for items that need to be accessible only while the application is in the foreground. Items with this attribute do not migrate to a new device. Thus, after restoring from a backup of a different device, these items will not be present.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.

The accessibility levels which do not contain the ThisDeviceOnly will be backed up to iCloud and backed up to iTunes even if using unencrypted backups which can be restored to any device. Depending on how sensitive and private the stored data is, this may raise a privacy concern.

Example 1: In the following example the Keychain item is protected at all times, except when the device is powered on and unlocked but the Keychain item will be backed up to iCloud and to unencrypted iTunes backups:


...
NSMutableDictionary *dict = [NSMutableDictionary dictionary];
NSData *token = [@"secret" dataUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding];

// Configure KeyChain Item
[dict setObject:(__bridge id)kSecClassGenericPassword forKey:(__bridge id) kSecClass];
[dict setObject:token forKey:(__bridge id)kSecValueData];
...
[dict setObject:(__bridge id)kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlocked forKey:(__bridge id) kSecAttrAccessible];

OSStatus error = SecItemAdd((__bridge CFDictionaryRef)dict, NULL);
...
References
[1] Keychain Services Apple
[2] Keychain Item Accessibility Constants Apple
[3] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 312, CWE ID 359
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002475
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.1.1 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.2 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.3 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3), 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.1 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.dataflow.objc.insecure_storage_externally_available_keychain
Abstract
The identified method stores data in the Keychain with an accessibility level that allows the item to be backed up to iCloud and unencrypted iTunes backups.
Explanation
When storing data into the Keychain, an accessibility level needs to be set up which defines when it will be possible to access the item. The possible accessibility levels include:

-kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlockThisDeviceOnly:
The data in the Keychain item cannot be accessed after a restart until the device has been unlocked once by the user.
After the first unlock, the data remains accessible until the next restart. This is recommended for items that need to be accessed by background applications. Items with this attribute do not migrate to a new device. Thus, after restoring from a backup of a different device, these items will not be present.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.

-kSecAttrAccessibleAlways:
The data in the Keychain item can always be accessed regardless of whether the device is locked.
This is not recommended for application use. Items with this attribute migrate to a new device when using encrypted backups.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.

-kSecAttrAccessibleWhenPasscodeSetThisDeviceOnly:
The data in the Keychain can only be accessed when the device is unlocked. Only available if a passcode is set on the device.
This is recommended for items that only need to be accessible while the application is in the foreground. Items with this attribute never migrate to a new device. After a backup is restored to a new device, these items are missing. No items can be stored in this class on devices without a passcode. Disabling the device passcode causes all items in this class to be deleted.
Available in iOS 8.0 and later.

-kSecAttrAccessibleAlwaysThisDeviceOnly:
The data in the Keychain item can always be accessed regardless of whether the device is locked.
This is not recommended for application use. Items with this attribute do not migrate to a new device. Thus, after restoring from a backup of a different device, these items will not be present.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.

-kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlocked:
The data in the Keychain item can be accessed only while the device is unlocked by the user.
This is recommended for items that need to be accessible only while the application is in the foreground. Items with this attribute migrate to a new device when using encrypted backups.
This is the default value for Keychain items added without explicitly setting an accessibility constant.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.

-kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly:
The data in the Keychain item can be accessed only while the device is unlocked by the user.
This is recommended for items that need to be accessible only while the application is in the foreground. Items with this attribute do not migrate to a new device. Thus, after restoring from a backup of a different device, these items will not be present.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.

The accessibility levels which do not contain the ThisDeviceOnly will be backed up to iCloud and backed up to iTunes even if using unencrypted backups which can be restored to any device. Depending on how sensitive and private the stored data is, this may raise a privacy concern.

Example 1: In the following example the Keychain item is protected at all times, except when the device is powered on and unlocked but the Keychain item will be backed up to iCloud and to unencrypted iTunes backups:


...
// Configure KeyChain Item
let token = "secret"
var query = [String : AnyObject]()
query[kSecClass as String] = kSecClassGenericPassword
query[kSecValueData as String] = token as AnyObject?
...
query[kSecAttrAccessible as String] = kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlocked

SecItemAdd(query as CFDictionary, nil)
...
References
[1] Keychain Services Apple
[2] Keychain Item Accessibility Constants Apple
[3] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 312, CWE ID 359
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002475
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.1.1 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.2 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.3 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3), 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.1 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.dataflow.swift.insecure_storage_externally_available_keychain
Abstract
The identified method sets up the HTTP(S) response cache in an insecure shared storage.
Explanation
The HTTP(S) responses may contain sensitive data such as session cookies and API tokens. The URL loading system will cache all the HTTP(S) responses for performance reasons, storing them unencrypted in an insecure shared storage.

Example 1: The following code installs the HTTP(S) response cache in shared storage space:


protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
...

try {
File httpCacheDir = new File(context.getExternalCacheDir(), "http");
long httpCacheSize = 10 * 1024 * 1024; // 10 MiB
HttpResponseCache.install(httpCacheDir, httpCacheSize);
} catch (IOException e) {
Log.i(TAG, "HTTP response cache installation failed:" + e);
}
}

protected void onStop() {
...

HttpResponseCache cache = HttpResponseCache.getInstalled();
if (cache != null) {
cache.flush();
}
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311, CWE ID 312, CWE ID 313, CWE ID 522
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 522
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [21] CWE ID 522
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001350, CCI-002475
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.3 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.1.1 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.2 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.3 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3), 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.dataflow.java.insecure_storage_http_response_cache_leak
Abstract
The identified method performs a URL request without configuring the URL loading system to prevent the caching of HTTP(S) responses.
Explanation
The HTTP(S) responses may contain sensitive data such as session cookies and API tokens. The URL loading system will cache all the HTTP(S) responses for performance reasons, storing them unencrypted in the {app ID}/Library/Caches/com.mycompany.myapp/Cache.db* files.
References
[1] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[2] URLCache Apple
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311, CWE ID 312, CWE ID 313, CWE ID 522
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 522
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [21] CWE ID 522
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001350, CCI-002475
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.3 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.1.1 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.2 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.3 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3), 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[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 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.dataflow.objc.insecure_storage_http_response_cache_leak
Abstract
The identified method performs a URL request without configuring the URL loading system to prevent the caching of HTTP(S) responses.
Explanation
The HTTP(S) responses may contain sensitive data such as session cookies and API tokens. The URL loading system will cache all the HTTP(S) responses for performance reasons, storing them unencrypted in the {app ID}/Library/Caches/com.mycompany.myapp/Cache.db* files.
References
[1] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[2] URLCache Apple
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311, CWE ID 312, CWE ID 313, CWE ID 522
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 522
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [21] CWE ID 522
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001350, CCI-002475
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.3 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.1.1 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.2 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.3 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3), 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[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 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.dataflow.swift.insecure_storage_http_response_cache_leak
Abstract
The application tries to disable the HTTP(S) cache by setting the disk or memory cache capacity to 0. However, there is no guarantee this setting will be enforced.
Explanation
The HTTP(S) responses may contain sensitive data such as session cookies and API tokens. The URL loading system will cache all the HTTP(S) responses for performance reasons, storing them unencrypted in the {app ID}/Library/Caches/com.mycompany.myapp/Cache.db* files.
Developers may think that by setting the diskCapacity or memoryCapacity properties of the URLCache class to 0, they may be effectively disabling the HTTP(S) response cache system. However, the NSURLCache documentation states that both the on-disk and in-memory caches will be truncated to the configured sizes only if the device runs low on memory or disk space. Both settings are meant to be used by the system to free system resources and improve performance, not as a security control.
References
[1] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[2] URLCache Apple
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311, CWE ID 312, CWE ID 313, CWE ID 522
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 522
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [21] CWE ID 522
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001350, CCI-002475
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.3 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.1.1 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.2 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.3 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3), 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[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 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.objc.insecure_storage_insufficient_cache_leak_protection
Abstract
The application tries to disable the HTTP(S) cache by setting the disk or memory cache capacity to 0. However, there is no guarantee this setting will be enforced.
Explanation
The HTTP(S) responses may contain sensitive data such as session cookies and API tokens. The URL loading system will cache all the HTTP(S) responses for performance reasons, storing them unencrypted in the {app ID}/Library/Caches/com.mycompany.myapp/Cache.db* files.
Developers may think that by setting the diskCapacity or memoryCapacity properties of the URLCache class to 0, they may be effectively disabling the HTTP(S) response cache system. However, the NSURLCache documentation states that both the on-disk and in-memory caches will be truncated to the configured sizes only if the device runs low on memory or disk space. Both settings are meant to be used by the system to free system resources and improve performance, not as a security control.
References
[1] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[2] URLCache Apple
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311, CWE ID 312, CWE ID 313, CWE ID 522
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 522
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [21] CWE ID 522
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001350, CCI-002475
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.3 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.1.1 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.2 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.3 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3), 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[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 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.swift.insecure_storage_insufficient_cache_leak_protection
Abstract
The identified method writes data to a file with potentially insufficient encryption settings.
Explanation
The Data Protection API is designed to let applications declare when items in the Keychain and files stored on the file system should be accessible. It is available for most file and database APIs, including NSFileManager, CoreData, NSData, and SQLite. By specifying one of four protection classes for a given resource, a developer can instruct the underlying file system to encrypt it either using a key derived from both the device's UID and the user's passcode or using a key solely based on the device's UID (as well as when to automatically decrypt it).

The Data Protection classes are defined for NSFileManager as constants meant to be assigned as the value for the NSFileProtectionKey key in an NSDictionary associated with the NSFileManager instance, and files can be created or have their data protection class modified through use of NSFileManager functions including setAttributes:ofItemAtPath:error:, attributesOfItemAtPath:error:, and createFileAtPath:contents:attributes:. In addition, corresponding Data Protection constants are defined for NSData objects as NSDataWritingOptions that can be passed as the options argument to NSData functions writeToURL:options:error: and writeToFile:options:error:. The definitions for the various Data Protection class constants for NSFileManager and NSData are as follows:

-NSFileProtectionComplete, NSDataWritingFileProtectionComplete:
The resource is stored in an encrypted format on disk and cannot be read from, or written to, while the device is locked or booting.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.
-NSFileProtectionCompleteUnlessOpen, NSDataWritingFileProtectionCompleteUnlessOpen:
The resource is stored in an encrypted format on disk. Resources can be created while the device is locked, but once closed, cannot be opened again until the device is unlocked. If the resource is opened when unlocked, you may continue to access the resource normally, even if the user locks the device.
Available in iOS 5.0 and later.
-NSFileProtectionCompleteUntilFirstUserAuthentication, NSDataWritingFileProtectionCompleteUntilFirstUserAuthentication:
The resource is stored in an encrypted format on disk and cannot be accessed until after the device has booted. After the user unlocks the device for the first time, your app can access the resource and continue to access it even if the user subsequently locks the device.
Available in iOS 5.0 and later.
-NSFileProtectionNone, NSDataWritingFileProtectionNone:
The resource has no special protections associated with it. It can be read from, or written to, at any time.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.

So, while marking a file with NSFileProtectionCompleteUnlessOpen or NSFileProtectionCompleteUntilFirstUserAuthentication will afford it encryption using a key derived from the user's passcode and the device's UID, the data will still remain accessible under certain circumstances. As such, usages of NSFileProtectionCompleteUnlessOpen or NSFileProtectionCompleteUntilFirstUserAuthentication should be carefully reviewed to determine if further protection with NSFileProtectionComplete is warranted.

Example 1: In the following example, the given file is only protected until the user powers on the device and provides their passcode for the first time (until the next reboot):


...
filepath = [self.GetDocumentDirectory stringByAppendingPathComponent:self.setFilename];
...
NSDictionary *protection = [NSDictionary dictionaryWithObject:NSFileProtectionCompleteUntilFirstUserAuthentication forKey:NSFileProtectionKey];
...
[[NSFileManager defaultManager] setAttributes:protection ofItemAtPath:filepath error:nil];
...
BOOL ok = [testToWrite writeToFile:filepath atomically:YES encoding:NSUnicodeStringEncoding error:&err];
...
Example 2: In the following example, the given data is only protected until the user powers on the device and provides their passcode for the first time (until the next reboot):


...
filepath = [self.GetDocumentDirectory stringByAppendingPathComponent:self.setFilename];
...
NSData *textData = [textToWrite dataUsingEncoding:NSUnicodeStingEncoding];
...
BOOL ok = [textData writeToFile:filepath options:NSDataWritingFileProtectionCompleteUntilFirstUserAuthentication error:&err];
...
References
[1] iOS Security Guide Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001350, CCI-002475
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.dataflow.objc.insecure_storage_insufficient_data_protection
Abstract
The identified method writes data to a file with potentially insufficient encryption settings.
Explanation
The Data Protection API is designed to let applications declare when items in the Keychain and files stored on the file system should be accessible. It is available for most file and database APIs, including NSFileManager, CoreData, NSData, and SQLite. By specifying one of four protection classes for a given resource, a developer can instruct the underlying file system to encrypt it either using a key derived from both the device's UID and the user's passcode or using a key solely based on the device's UID (as well as when to automatically decrypt it).

The Data Protection classes are defined in NSFileManager as constants meant to be assigned as the value for the NSFileProtectionKey key in a Dictionary associated with the NSFileManager instance, and files can be created or have their data protection class modified through use of NSFileManager functions including setAttributes(_:ofItemAtPath:), attributesOfItemAtPath(_:), and createFileAtPath(_:contents:attributes:). In addition, corresponding Data Protection constants are defined for NSData objects in the NSDataWritingOptions enum that can be passed as the options argument to NSData functions
writeToFile(_:options:)
. The definitions for the various Data Protection class constants for NSFileManager and NSData are as follows:

-NSFileProtectionComplete, NSDataWritingOptions.DataWritingFileProtectionComplete:
The resource is stored in an encrypted format on disk and cannot be read from, or written to, while the device is locked or booting.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.
-NSFileProtectionCompleteUnlessOpen, NSDataWritingOptions.DataWritingFileProtectionCompleteUnlessOpen:
The resource is stored in an encrypted format on disk. Resources can be created while the device is locked, but once closed, cannot be opened again until the device is unlocked. If the resource is opened when unlocked, you may continue to access the resource normally, even if the user locks the device.
Available in iOS 5.0 and later.
-NSFileProtectionCompleteUntilFirstUserAuthentication, NSDataWritingOptions.DataWritingFileProtectionCompleteUntilFirstUserAuthentication:
The resource is stored in an encrypted format on disk and cannot be accessed until after the device has booted. After the user unlocks the device for the first time, your app can access the resource and continue to access it even if the user subsequently locks the device.
Available in iOS 5.0 and later.
-NSFileProtectionNone, NSDataWritingOptions.DataWritingFileProtectionNone:
The resource has no special protections associated with it. It can be read from, or written to, at any time.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.

So, while marking a file with NSFileProtectionCompleteUnlessOpen or NSFileProtectionCompleteUntilFirstUserAuthentication will afford it encryption using a key derived from the user's passcode and the device's UID, the data will still remain accessible under certain circumstances. As such, usages of NSFileProtectionCompleteUnlessOpen or NSFileProtectionCompleteUntilFirstUserAuthentication should be carefully reviewed to determine if further protection with NSFileProtectionComplete is warranted.

Example 1: In the following example, the given file is only protected until the user powers on the device and provides their passcode for the first time (until the next reboot):


...
let documentsPath = NSURL(fileURLWithPath: NSSearchPathForDirectoriesInDomains(.DocumentDirectory, .UserDomainMask, true)[0])
let filename = "\(documentsPath)/tmp_activeTrans.txt"
let protection = [NSFileProtectionKey: NSFileProtectionCompleteUntilFirstUserAuthentication]
do {
try NSFileManager.defaultManager().setAttributes(protection, ofItemAtPath: filename)
} catch let error as NSError {
NSLog("Unable to change attributes: \(error.debugDescription)")
}
...
BOOL ok = textToWrite.writeToFile(filename, atomically:true)
...
Example 2: In the following example, the given data is only protected until the user powers on the device and provides their passcode for the first time (until the next reboot):


...
let documentsPath = NSURL(fileURLWithPath: NSSearchPathForDirectoriesInDomains(.DocumentDirectory, .UserDomainMask, true)[0])
let filename = "\(documentsPath)/tmp_activeTrans.txt"
...
BOOL ok = textData.writeToFile(filepath, options: .DataWritingFileProtectionCompleteUntilFirstUserAuthentication);
...
References
[1] iOS Security Guide Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001350, CCI-002475
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.insecure_storage_insufficient_data_protection
Abstract
The identified method stores data in the Keychain with potentially insufficient encryption settings.
Explanation
The Keychain accessibility constants are designed to let applications declare when items in the Keychain should be accessible. By specifying one of accessibility constants for a given Keychain item, a developer can instruct the underlying file system to encrypt it either using a key derived from both the device's UID and the user's passcode or using a key solely based on the device's UID (as well as when to automatically decrypt it).

The Keychain accessibility constants are meant to be assigned as the value for the kSecAttrAccessible key in the Keychain attribute dictionary. The definitions for the various Keychain accessibility constants are as follows:

-kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock:
The data in the Keychain item cannot be accessed after a restart until the device has been unlocked once by the user.
After the first unlock, the data remains accessible until the next restart. This is recommended for items that need to be accessed by background applications. Items with this attribute migrate to a new device when using encrypted backups.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.

-kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlockThisDeviceOnly:
The data in the Keychain item cannot be accessed after a restart until the device has been unlocked once by the user.
After the first unlock, the data remains accessible until the next restart. This is recommended for items that need to be accessed by background applications. Items with this attribute do not migrate to a new device. Thus, after restoring from a backup of a different device, these items will not be present.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.

-kSecAttrAccessibleAlways:
The data in the Keychain item can always be accessed regardless of whether the device is locked.
This is not recommended for application use. Items with this attribute migrate to a new device when using encrypted backups.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.

-kSecAttrAccessibleWhenPasscodeSetThisDeviceOnly:
The data in the Keychain can only be accessed when the device is unlocked. Only available if a passcode is set on the device.
This is recommended for items that only need to be accessible while the application is in the foreground. Items with this attribute never migrate to a new device. After a backup is restored to a new device, these items are missing. No items can be stored in this class on devices without a passcode. Disabling the device passcode causes all items in this class to be deleted.
Available in iOS 8.0 and later.

-kSecAttrAccessibleAlwaysThisDeviceOnly:
The data in the Keychain item can always be accessed regardless of whether the device is locked.
This is not recommended for application use. Items with this attribute do not migrate to a new device. Thus, after restoring from a backup of a different device, these items will not be present.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.

-kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlocked:
The data in the Keychain item can be accessed only while the device is unlocked by the user.
This is recommended for items that need to be accessible only while the application is in the foreground. Items with this attribute migrate to a new device when using encrypted backups.
This is the default value for Keychain items added without explicitly setting an accessibility constant.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.

-kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly:
The data in the Keychain item can be accessed only while the device is unlocked by the user.
This is recommended for items that need to be accessible only while the application is in the foreground. Items with this attribute do not migrate to a new device. Thus, after restoring from a backup of a different device, these items will not be present.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.

So, while marking a Keychain item with kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock will afford it encryption using a key derived from the user's passcode and the device's UID, the data will still remain accessible under certain circumstances. As such, usages of kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock should be carefully reviewed to determine if further protection is warranted.

Example 1: In the following example, the given Keychain item is only protected until the user powers on the device and provides their passcode for the first time (until the next reboot):


...
NSMutableDictionary *dict = [NSMutableDictionary dictionary];
NSData *token = [@"secret" dataUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding];

// Configure KeyChain Item
[dict setObject:(__bridge id)kSecClassGenericPassword forKey:(__bridge id) kSecClass];
[dict setObject:token forKey:(__bridge id)kSecValueData];
...
[dict setObject:(__bridge id)kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock forKey:(__bridge id) kSecAttrAccessible];

OSStatus error = SecItemAdd((__bridge CFDictionaryRef)dict, NULL);
...
References
[1] iOS Security Guide Apple: October 2014
[2] Keychain Services Apple
[3] Keychain Item Accessibility Constants Apple
[4] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[10] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311, CWE ID 312, CWE ID 313, CWE ID 522
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 522
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [21] CWE ID 522
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[16] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[17] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001350, CCI-002475
[18] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[19] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[21] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.3 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.1.1 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.2 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.3 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3), 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[31] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[32] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.dataflow.objc.insecure_storage_insufficient_keychain_protection
Abstract
The identified method stores data in the Keychain with potentially insufficient encryption settings.
Explanation
The Keychain accessibility constants are designed to let applications declare when items in the Keychain should be accessible. By specifying one of accessibility constants for a given Keychain item, a developer can instruct the underlying file system to encrypt it either using a key derived from both the device's UID and the user's passcode or using a key solely based on the device's UID (as well as when to automatically decrypt it).

The Keychain accessibility constants are meant to be assigned as the value for the kSecAttrAccessible key in the Keychain attribute dictionary. The definitions for the various Keychain accessibility constants are as follows:

-kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock:
The data in the Keychain item cannot be accessed after a restart until the device has been unlocked once by the user.
After the first unlock, the data remains accessible until the next restart. This is recommended for items that need to be accessed by background applications. Items with this attribute migrate to a new device when using encrypted backups.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.

-kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlockThisDeviceOnly:
The data in the Keychain item cannot be accessed after a restart until the device has been unlocked once by the user.
After the first unlock, the data remains accessible until the next restart. This is recommended for items that need to be accessed by background applications. Items with this attribute do not migrate to a new device. Thus, after restoring from a backup of a different device, these items will not be present.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.

-kSecAttrAccessibleAlways:
The data in the Keychain item can always be accessed regardless of whether the device is locked.
This is not recommended for application use. Items with this attribute migrate to a new device when using encrypted backups.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.

-kSecAttrAccessibleWhenPasscodeSetThisDeviceOnly:
The data in the Keychain can only be accessed when the device is unlocked. Only available if a passcode is set on the device.
This is recommended for items that only need to be accessible while the application is in the foreground. Items with this attribute never migrate to a new device. After a backup is restored to a new device, these items are missing. No items can be stored in this class on devices without a passcode. Disabling the device passcode causes all items in this class to be deleted.
Available in iOS 8.0 and later.

-kSecAttrAccessibleAlwaysThisDeviceOnly:
The data in the Keychain item can always be accessed regardless of whether the device is locked.
This is not recommended for application use. Items with this attribute do not migrate to a new device. Thus, after restoring from a backup of a different device, these items will not be present.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.

-kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlocked:
The data in the Keychain item can be accessed only while the device is unlocked by the user.
This is recommended for items that need to be accessible only while the application is in the foreground. Items with this attribute migrate to a new device when using encrypted backups.
This is the default value for Keychain items added without explicitly setting an accessibility constant.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.

-kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly:
The data in the Keychain item can be accessed only while the device is unlocked by the user.
This is recommended for items that need to be accessible only while the application is in the foreground. Items with this attribute do not migrate to a new device. Thus, after restoring from a backup of a different device, these items will not be present.
Available in iOS 4.0 and later.

So, while marking a Keychain item with kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock will afford it encryption using a key derived from the user's passcode and the device's UID, the data will still remain accessible under certain circumstances. As such, usages of kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock should be carefully reviewed to determine if further protection is warranted.

Example 1: In the following example, the given Keychain item is only protected until the user powers on the device and provides their passcode for the first time (until the next reboot):


...
// Configure KeyChain Item
let token = "secret"
var query = [String : AnyObject]()
query[kSecClass as String] = kSecClassGenericPassword
query[kSecValueData as String] = token as AnyObject?
...
query[kSecAttrAccessible as String] = kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock

SecItemAdd(query as CFDictionary, nil)
...
References
[1] iOS Security Guide Apple: October 2014
[2] Keychain Services Apple
[3] Keychain Item Accessibility Constants Apple
[4] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[10] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311, CWE ID 312, CWE ID 313, CWE ID 522
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 522
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [21] CWE ID 522
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[16] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[17] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001350, CCI-002475
[18] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[19] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[21] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.3 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.1.1 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.2 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.3 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3), 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[31] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[32] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.dataflow.swift.insecure_storage_insufficient_keychain_protection