Kingdom: API Abuse

An API is a contract between a caller and a callee. The most common forms of API abuse are caused by the caller failing to honor its end of this contract. For example, if a program fails to call chdir() after calling chroot(), it violates the contract that specifies how to change the active root directory in a secure fashion. Another good example of library abuse is expecting the callee to return trustworthy DNS information to the caller. In this case, the caller abuses the callee API by making certain assumptions about its behavior (that the return value can be used for authentication purposes). One can also violate the caller-callee contract from the other side. For example, if a coder subclasses SecureRandom and returns a non-random value, the contract is violated.

94 items found
Weaknesses
Abstract
Improper overriding of the classes in the .NET Framework, may lead to arbitrary code execution on the server, abuse of application logic or denial of service.
Explanation
Regardless of the language a program is written in, the most devastating attacks often involve remote code execution, whereby an attacker succeeds in executing malicious code in the program's context. The GetChars method in Decoder & Encoding classes and the GetBytes method in Encoder & Encoding classes in the .NET Framework internally performs pointer arithmetic on the char & byte arrays to convert range of character into range of bytes and vice versa.
When performing pointer arithmetic operations, developers often override the preceding methods in a bad fashion and introduce vulnerabilities such as arbitrary code execution, application logic abuse and denial of service.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 176
[2] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.2 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[4] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[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
desc.structural.dotnet.often_misused_encoding
Abstract
This method is difficult to use correctly.
Explanation
It is easy to believe that this encoding method will protect against injection attacks, but if the method is not used in exactly the right context, it can offer much less protection than it advertises.

Example 1: The following encoding call allows an attacker quite a bit of latitude for inserting malicious JavaScript:

out.println("x = " + encoder.encodeForJavaScript(input) + ";");
References
[1] OWASP ESAPI Secure Coding Guideline
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 176
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.2 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
desc.structural.java.often_misused_encoding
Abstract
The identified call may best-fit characters. Unsupported characters passed to default API methods can be best-fit mapped to dangerous characters.
Explanation
When character sets are mismatched between the operating system and applications running on the operating system, unsupported characters passed to default API methods can be best-fit mapped to dangerous characters.

Example 1: In Objective-C, the following example converts an NSString object containing a UTF-8 character to ASCII data then back:


...
unichar ellipsis = 0x2026;
NSString *myString = [NSString stringWithFormat:@"My Test String%C", ellipsis];
NSData *asciiData = [myString dataUsingEncoding:NSASCIIStringEncoding allowLossyConversion:YES];
NSString *asciiString = [[NSString alloc] initWithData:asciiData encoding:NSASCIIStringEncoding];
NSLog(@"Original: %@ (length %d)", myString, [myString length]);
NSLog(@"Best-fit-mapped: %@ (length %d)", asciiString, [asciiString length]);
// output:
// Original: My Test String... (length 15)
// Best-fit-mapped: My Test String... (length 17)
...


If you look at the output carefully, the "..." character was translated to three consecutive periods. If you had sized your output buffer based on the input buffer your application could be vulnerable to buffer overflow. Other characters can get mapped from one character to two. The Greek "fi" character will get mapped to an "f" followed by an "i". By front loading the buffer with these characters an attacker gains complete control over the number of characters used to overflow the buffer.
References
[1] Apple Secure Coding Guide Apple
[2] String Programming Guide Apple
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 176
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.2 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[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 - 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
desc.semantic.objc.method_may_best_fit_map_characters
Abstract
The identified call may best-fit characters. Unsupported characters passed to default API methods can be best-fit mapped to dangerous characters.
Explanation
When character sets are mismatched between the operating system and applications running on the operating system, unsupported characters passed to default API methods can be best-fit mapped to dangerous characters.

Example 1: In Swift, the following example converts an NSString object containing a UTF-8 character to ASCII data then back:


...
let ellipsis = 0x2026;
let myString = NSString(format:"My Test String %C", ellipsis)
let asciiData = myString.dataUsingEncoding(NSASCIIStringEncoding, allowLossyConversion:true)
let asciiString = NSString(data:asciiData!, encoding:NSASCIIStringEncoding)
NSLog("Original: %@ (length %d)", myString, myString.length)
NSLog("Best-fit-mapped: %@ (length %d)", asciiString!, asciiString!.length)

// output:
// Original: My Test String ... (length 16)
// Best-fit-mapped: My Test String ... (length 18)
...


If you look at the output carefully, the "..." character was translated to three consecutive periods. If you had sized your output buffer based on the input buffer your application could be vulnerable to buffer overflow. Other characters can get mapped from one character to two. The Greek "fi" character will get mapped to an "f" followed by an "i". By front loading the buffer with these characters an attacker gains complete control over the number of characters used to overflow the buffer.
References
[1] Apple Secure Coding Guide Apple
[2] String Programming Guide Apple
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 176
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.2 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[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 - 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
desc.semantic.swift.method_may_best_fit_map_characters
Abstract
The _alloca() function can throw a stack overflow exception, potentially causing the program to crash.
Explanation
The _alloca() function allocates memory on the stack. If an allocation request is too large for the available stack space, _alloca() throws an exception. If the exception is not caught, the program will crash, potentially enabling a denial of service attack.
_alloca() has been deprecated as of Microsoft Visual Studio 2005(R). It has been replaced with the more secure _alloca_s().
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 248
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.3
[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 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A7 Improper Error Handling
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.2, Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective B.3.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective B.3.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
desc.semantic.cpp.often_misused_exception_handling._alloca
Abstract
Passing an inadequately-sized output buffer to a path manipulation function can result in a buffer overflow.
Explanation
Windows provides a large number of utility functions that manipulate buffers containing filenames. In most cases, the result is returned in a buffer that is passed in as input. (Usually the filename is modified in place.) Most functions require the buffer to be at least MAX_PATH bytes in length, but you should check the documentation for each function individually. If the buffer is not large enough to store the result of the manipulation, a buffer overflow can occur.

Example 1:

char *createOutputDirectory(char *name) {
char outputDirectoryName[128];
if (getCurrentDirectory(128, outputDirectoryName) == 0) {
return null;
}
if (!PathAppend(outputDirectoryName, "output")) {
return null;
}
if (!PathAppend(outputDirectoryName, name)) {
return null;
}
if (SHCreateDirectoryEx(NULL, outputDirectoryName, NULL)
!= ERROR_SUCCESS) {
return null;
}
return StrDup(outputDirectoryName);
}


In this example the function creates a directory named "output\<name>" in the current directory and returns a heap-allocated copy of its name. For most values of the current directory and the name parameter, this function will work properly. However, if the name parameter is particularly long, then the second call to PathAppend() could overflow the outputDirectoryName buffer, which is smaller than MAX_PATH bytes.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 249, CWE ID 560
[2] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[4] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3590.1 CAT I
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3590.1 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3590.1 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3590.1 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3590.1 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3590.1 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3590.1 CAT I
desc.semantic.cpp.often_misused_file_system.windows
Abstract
The mask specified by the argument umask() is often confused with the argument to chmod().
Explanation
The umask() man page begins with the false statement:

"umask sets the umask to mask & 0777"

Although this behavior would better align with the usage of chmod(), where the user provided argument specifies the bits to enable on the specified file, the behavior of umask() is in fact opposite: umask() sets the umask to ~mask & 0777.

The umask() man page goes on to describe the correct usage of umask():

"The umask is used by open() to set initial file permissions on a newly-created file. Specifically, permissions in the umask are turned off from the mode argument to open(2) (so, for example, the common umask default value of 022 results in new files being created with permissions 0666 & ~022 = 0644 = rw-r--r-- in the usual case where the mode is specified as 0666)."
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 249, CWE ID 560
[2] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[4] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3590.1 CAT I
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3590.1 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3590.1 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3590.1 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3590.1 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3590.1 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3590.1 CAT I
desc.semantic.java.often_misused_file_system
Abstract
The identified call uses methods which follow symbolic links.
Explanation
Certain identified functions are known to blindly follow symbolic links. When this happens, your application will open, read, or write data to the file that the symbolic link points to instead of the representation of the symbolic link. An attacker may fool the application into writing to alternate or critical system files or provide compromised data to the application.

Example 1: The following code utilizes functions which follow symbolic links:


...
struct stat output;
int ret = stat(aFilePath, &output);
// error handling omitted for this example
struct timespec accessTime = output.st_atime;
...
References
[1] Apple Secure Coding Guide Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 249, CWE ID 560
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[4] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[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
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3590.1 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3590.1 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3590.1 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3590.1 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3590.1 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3590.1 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3590.1 CAT I
desc.semantic.objc.methods_follow_sym_links
Abstract
The mask specified by the argument umask() is often confused with the argument to chmod().
Explanation
The umask() man page begins with the false statement:

"umask sets the umask to mask & 0777"

Although this behavior would better align with the usage of chmod(), where the user provided argument specifies the bits to enable on the specified file, the behavior of umask() is in fact opposite: umask() sets the umask to ~mask & 0777.

The umask() man page goes on to describe the correct usage of umask():

"The umask is used to set initial file permissions on a newly-created file. Specifically, permissions in the umask are turned off from the mode argument (so, for example, the common umask default value of 022 results in new files being created with permissions 0666 & ~022 = 0644 = rw-r--r-- in the usual case where the mode is specified as 0666)."
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 249, CWE ID 560
[2] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[4] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3590.1 CAT I
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3590.1 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3590.1 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3590.1 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3590.1 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3590.1 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3590.1 CAT I
desc.semantic.python.often_misused_file_system.umask
Abstract
The call uses methods which write to temporary files before writing to the targeted file.
Explanation
Many APIs will minimize the risk of data loss by completely writing to a temporary file, then copy the complete file to the target destination. Make sure the identified method does not work on files or paths in public or temporary directories as an attacker may replace the temporary file the instant before it is written to the targeted file. This allows the attacker to control the content of files used by the application in public directories.

Example 1: The following code writes the active transactionId to a temporary file in the application Documents directory using a vulnerable method:


...
//get the documents directory:
let documentsPath = NSSearchPathForDirectoriesInDomains(.DocumentDirectory, .UserDomainMask, true)[0]
//make a file name to write the data to using the documents directory:
let fileName = NSString(format:"%@/tmp_activeTrans.txt", documentsPath)
// write data to the file
let transactionId = "TransactionId=12341234"
transactionId.writeToFile(fileName, atomically:true)
...
References
[1] Apple Secure Coding Guide Apple
[2] Apple NSString Class Reference Apple
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 249, CWE ID 560
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[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
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3590.1 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3590.1 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3590.1 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3590.1 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3590.1 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3590.1 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3590.1 CAT I
desc.semantic.swift.methods_unsafe_on_public_or_tmp_directories
Abstract
Permitting users to upload files can allow attackers to inject dangerous content or malicious code to run on the server.
Explanation
Regardless of the language in which a program is written, the most devastating attacks often involve remote code execution, whereby an attacker succeeds in executing malicious code in the program's context. If attackers are allowed to upload files to a directory that is accessible from the Web and cause these files to be passed to a code interpreter (e.g. JSP/ASPX/PHP), then they can cause malicious code contained in these files to execute on the server.

The following code receives an uploaded file and assigns it to the posted object. FileUpload is of type System.Web.UI.HtmlControls.HtmlInputFile.
Example 1:

HttpPostedFile posted = FileUpload.PostedFile;

Even if a program stores uploaded files under a directory that isn't accessible from the Web, attackers might still be able to leverage the ability to introduce malicious content into the server environment to mount other attacks. If the program is susceptible to path manipulation, command injection, or dangerous file inclusion vulnerabilities, then an attacker might upload a file with malicious content and cause the program to read or execute it by exploiting another vulnerability.
References
[1] Alla Bezroutchko Secure file upload in PHP web applications
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 434
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [16] CWE ID 434
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [15] CWE ID 434
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [10] CWE ID 434
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [10] CWE ID 434
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [10] CWE ID 434
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [10] CWE ID 434
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[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 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.2.1 File Integrity Requirements (L2 L3), 12.5.2 File Download Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.5 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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 A04 Insecure Design
[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
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 434
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 434
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 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-003300 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.semantic.dotnet.often_misused_file_upload
Abstract
Permitting users to upload files can allow attackers to inject dangerous content or malicious code to run on the server.
Explanation
Regardless of the language a program is written in, the most devastating attacks often involve remote code execution, whereby an attacker succeeds in executing malicious code in the program's context. If attackers are allowed to upload files to a directory that is accessible from the Web and cause these files to be passed to a code interpreter (e.g. JSP/ASPX/PHP), then they can cause malicious code contained in these files to execute on the server.

Example 1: The following Spring MVC controller class has a parameter than can be used to handle uploaded files.

@Controller
public class MyFormController {
...
@RequestMapping("/test")
public String uploadFile (org.springframework.web.multipart.MultipartFile file) {
...
} ...
}


Even if a program stores uploaded files under a directory that isn't accessible from the Web, attackers might still be able to leverage the ability to introduce malicious content into the server environment to mount other attacks. If the program is susceptible to path manipulation, command injection, or dangerous file inclusion vulnerabilities, then an attacker might upload a file with malicious content and cause the program to read or execute it by exploiting another vulnerability.
References
[1] Alla Bezroutchko Secure file upload in PHP web applications
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 434
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [16] CWE ID 434
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [15] CWE ID 434
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [10] CWE ID 434
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [10] CWE ID 434
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [10] CWE ID 434
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [10] CWE ID 434
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[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 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.2.1 File Integrity Requirements (L2 L3), 12.5.2 File Download Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.5 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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 A04 Insecure Design
[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
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 434
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 434
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 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-003300 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.structural.java.often_misused_file_upload_spring
Abstract
Permitting users to upload files can allow attackers to inject dangerous content or malicious code to run on the server.
Explanation
Regardless of the language in which a program is written, the most devastating attacks often involve remote code execution, whereby an attacker succeeds in executing malicious code in the program's context. If attackers are allowed to upload files to a directory that is accessible from the Web and cause these files to be passed to the PHP interpreter, then they can cause malicious code contained in these files to execute on the server.

Example 1: The following code processes uploaded files and moves them into a directory under the Web root. Attackers may upload malicious PHP source files to this program and subsequently request them from the server, which will cause them to be executed by the PHP interpreter.


<?php
$udir = 'upload/'; // Relative path under Web root
$ufile = $udir . basename($_FILES['userfile']['name']);
if (move_uploaded_file($_FILES['userfile']['tmp_name'], $ufile)) {
echo "Valid upload received\n";
} else {
echo "Invalid upload rejected\n";
} ?>


Even if a program stores uploaded files under a directory that isn't accessible from the Web, attackers might still be able to leverage the ability to introduce malicious content into the server environment to mount other attacks. If the program is susceptible to path manipulation, command injection, or remote include vulnerabilities, then an attacker might upload a file with malicious content and cause the program to read or execute it by exploiting another vulnerability.
References
[1] M. Achour et al. PHP Manual
[2] Alla Bezroutchko Secure file upload in PHP web applications
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 434
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [16] CWE ID 434
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [15] CWE ID 434
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [10] CWE ID 434
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [10] CWE ID 434
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [10] CWE ID 434
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [10] CWE ID 434
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[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 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.2.1 File Integrity Requirements (L2 L3), 12.5.2 File Download Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.5 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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 A04 Insecure Design
[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
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 434
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 434
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 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-003300 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.semantic.php.often_misused_file_upload
Abstract
Permitting users to upload files can allow attackers to inject dangerous content or malicious code to run on the server.
Explanation
Regardless of the language in which a program is written, the most devastating attacks often involve remote code execution, whereby an attacker succeeds in executing malicious code in the program's context. If attackers are allowed to upload files to a directory that is accessible from the Web and cause these files to be passed to the Python interpreter, then they can cause malicious code contained in these files to execute on the server.

Example 1: The following code processes uploaded files and moves them into a directory under the web root. Attackers may upload malicious files to this program and subsequently request them from the server.


from django.core.files.storage import default_storage
from django.core.files.base import File
...
def handle_upload(request):
files = request.FILES
for f in files.values():
path = default_storage.save('upload/', File(f))
...


Even if a program stores uploaded files under a directory that isn't accessible from the Web, attackers might still be able to leverage the ability to introduce malicious content into the server environment to mount other attacks. If the program is susceptible to path manipulation, command injection, or remote include vulnerabilities, then an attacker might upload a file with malicious content and cause the program to read or execute it by exploiting another vulnerability.
References
[1] Django Foundation File Uploads
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 434
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [16] CWE ID 434
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [15] CWE ID 434
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [10] CWE ID 434
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [10] CWE ID 434
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [10] CWE ID 434
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [10] CWE ID 434
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[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 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.2.1 File Integrity Requirements (L2 L3), 12.5.2 File Download Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.5 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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 A04 Insecure Design
[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
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 434
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 434
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 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-003300 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.structural.python.often_misused_file_upload
Abstract
Permitting users to upload files can allow attackers to inject dangerous content or malicious code to run on the server.
Explanation
Regardless of the language in which a program is written, the most devastating attacks often involve remote code execution, whereby an attacker succeeds in executing malicious code in the program's context. If attackers are allowed to upload files to a publicly executable directory, then they can cause malicious code contained in these files to execute on the server.

Even if a program stores uploaded files under a directory that isn't publicly accessible, attackers might still be able to leverage the ability to introduce malicious content into the server environment to mount other attacks. If the program is susceptible to path manipulation, command injection, or remote include vulnerabilities, then an attacker might upload a file with malicious content and cause the program to read or execute it by exploiting another vulnerability.
References
[1] Alla Bezroutchko Secure file upload in PHP web applications
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 434
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [16] CWE ID 434
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [15] CWE ID 434
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [10] CWE ID 434
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [10] CWE ID 434
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [10] CWE ID 434
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [10] CWE ID 434
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[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 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.2.1 File Integrity Requirements (L2 L3), 12.5.2 File Download Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.5 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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 A04 Insecure Design
[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
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 434
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 434
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 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-003300 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.structural.ruby.often_misused_file_upload
Abstract
Permitting users to upload files can allow attackers to inject dangerous content or malicious code to run on the server.
Explanation
Regardless of the language in which a program is written, the most devastating attacks often involve remote code execution, whereby an attacker succeeds in executing malicious code in the program's context. If attackers are allowed to upload files to a directory that is accessible from the Web and cause these files to be passed to a code interpreter (e.g. JSP/ASPX/PHP), then they can cause malicious code contained in these files to execute on the server.
Even if a program stores uploaded files under a directory that isn't accessible from the Web, attackers might still be able to leverage the ability to introduce malicious content into the server environment to mount other attacks. If the program is susceptible to path manipulation, command injection, or dangerous file inclusion vulnerabilities, then an attacker might upload a file with malicious content and cause the program to read or execute it by exploiting another vulnerability.

An <input> tag of type file indicates the program accepts file uploads.
Example 1:

<input type="file">
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 434
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [16] CWE ID 434
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [15] CWE ID 434
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [10] CWE ID 434
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [10] CWE ID 434
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [10] CWE ID 434
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [10] CWE ID 434
[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)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.2.1 File Integrity Requirements (L2 L3), 12.5.2 File Download Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.5 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[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 A04 Insecure Design
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[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 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 434
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 434
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.content.html.often_misused_file_upload
Abstract
Unsafe use of Flash storage objects might lead to unauthorized client-side access to sensitive content.
Explanation
Local Storage Objects (LSO) are a mechanism provided by the Flash platform to persistently store data on the client machine. By default, the Flash security model restricts access to a shared object based on the domain hosting the SWF file that created it, the path of the SWF file, and whether the creating SWF file was hosted on HTTP or HTTPS. The localpath property on a shared object specifies the path of the SWFs that have access to a shared object. For example, a shared object created by http://www.example.com/dir1/dir2/sample.swf can be configured to be accessible by any SWF at http://www.example.com/dir1 by setting its localPath property to http://www.example.com/dir1.
Setting the localPath value to "/", gives all SWF files on that domain access to the shared object. On a domain hosting SWF applications from multiple parties, such a setting might lead to unauthorized data access.

If an application uses "/" to set the localPath inside a SharedObject.getLocal() call, the shared object is configured to be accessible by all SWFs on the domain, which exposes the application to information theft risks.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001090
[2] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-4 Information in Shared Resources (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-4 Information in Shared System Resources
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[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 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.dynamic.actionscript.often_misused_flash_storage_object
Abstract
Attackers can bypass server protections against dangerous HTTP verbs using override techniques.
Explanation
To protect access to various resources, web servers might be configured to prevent the usage of specific HTTP verbs. However, some web frameworks provide a way to override the HTTP verb by using HTTP request headers. This feature is typically used when a web or proxy server restricts certain verbs, but the application needs to use them, especially in RESTful services. However, it is possible for a malicious user to take advantage of this feature. Doing so can enable the attacker to perform unintended actions on protected resources in the web application.

The attack works by using a trusted HTTP verb such as GET or POST, but adds request headers such as X-HTTP-Method, X-HTTP-Method-Override, or X-Method-Override to provide a restricted verb such as PUT or DELETE. Doing so forces the request to be interpreted by the target application using the verb in the request header instead of the actual HTTP verb. In certain cases, the restricted verb might also be used in query or post parameters instead of a request header.
References
[1] MSDN Microsoft
[2] ExpressJS ExpressJS
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 749
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000381
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1), CM-7 Least Functionality (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement, CM-7 Least Functionality
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 14.5.1 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A10 Failure to Restrict URL Access
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A8 Failure to Restrict URL Access
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A7 Missing Function Level Access Control
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[25] 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
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 676
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3110 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3110 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3110 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Abuse of Functionality
desc.dynamic.xtended_preview.often_misused_http_method_override
Abstract
Insecure handling of login information can enable attackers to circumvent the application's authentication system.
Explanation
Poorly written login forms can lead to the following vulnerabilities:

1. Theft of credential information
a. Login forms designed to use the GET HTTP method can reveal sensitive information to attackers in the query string.
b. Transmission of login information in cleartext leaves it vulnerable to information theft.
c. Serving login forms over an insecure connection can allow an attacker to intercept and tamper with the login form itself and circumvent any protections offered by the original login form
d. Processing unvalidated data in the page containing the login form can enable attackers to install malicious scripts and capture sensitive information
2. Authentication bypass
a. Failing to validate user-submitted data in a login form can leave the application vulnerable to SQL Injection attacks, which enables an attacker to completely bypass the authentication system
3. Session hijacking
a. In the absence of adequate protections against Cross-Site Request Forgery and Cross-Frame Scripting vulnerabilities, attackers can hijack legitimate user sessions.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311
[2] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SC
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M3 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A9 Insecure Communications
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A9 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 8.4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.3.1.4, Requirement 6.5.9, Requirement 8.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4, Requirement 8.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3330 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3330 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3330 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3330 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3330 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3330 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3330 CAT I
desc.dynamic.xtended_preview.often_misused_login
Abstract
A MAC address is intended to be used as a network identifier. Because a MAC address permanently identifies a device, all apps using it as a user identifier have the same ID value. Therefore, by correlating information from various apps, it is possible to identify a device and its user, which threatens user privacy.
Explanation
A MAC address is a unique identifier assigned to hardware network interfaces. These addresses are unique to every computer or mobile device and cannot be modified. A MAC address can uniquely identify a given device, indirectly identifying the person using the device as well. Only network components should use MAC addresses to connect the device to the network. Some applications tend to use it to identify a user to track and personalize the user's experience.

Typically, a MAC address is 6 bytes long, and can be represented in 6 groups, each group composed of two hexadecimal digits. The groups can be separated by either a colon or a hyphen; for example,

65:4A:9D:D8:98:F3 (or)
65-4A-9D-D8-98-F3
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 359
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001090
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Privacy Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-4 Information in Shared Resources (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-4 Information in Shared System Resources
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.1 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M6 Inadequate Privacy Controls
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[36] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.dynamic.xtended_preview.often_misused_mac_address
Abstract
Template languages should not be mixed to prevent working around cross-site scripting protections.
Explanation
When you mix templating engines it means that protections that were previously implemented for one may no longer work, or be valid. In the most benign version of this, it may lead to functionality not working as expected, but this also may allow malicious users to get around protections in the engine that lead to cross-site scripting vulnerabilities.

Example 1: In the following code an AngularJS module is configured to use "[[" and "]]" for expression delimiters instead of the default.


myModule.config(function($interpolateProvider){
$interpolateProvider.startSymbol("[[");
$interpolateProvider.endSymbol("]]");
});


This could lead to the other template engine performing validation to escape the expressions, which may not be compatible with AngularJS expressions, potentially leading to users being able to bypass regular validation and run their own code within the browser.
References
[1] AngularJS $interpolateProvider documentation Google
[2] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
desc.structural.javascript.often_misused_mixing_template_languages
Abstract
The target mobile application sends data that looks like a Universal Device Identifier (UDID) in a request.
Explanation
The mobile application includes data that matches the pattern of a Universal Device Identifier (UDID) in a request to an external host. A UDID is a static construct used to uniquely identify one mobile device from another. UDID implementations may differ across platforms. For example, while iOS uses a 20-byte hex string, Android uses the device's embedded IMEI or MEID number. [1, 2]

A device's UDID is completely persistent across wipes, and can therefore be used to personalize a user's preferences and behavior across multiple apps as long as he or she remains the sole owner and user of the device. As this is not a completely reliable assumption to make, one should not use a device's UDID for this purpose.

Furthermore, as UDIDs are completely persistent across wipes and cannot be changed, associating a user's name or other identifying information with the UDID of his or her device would present itself as a privacy violation should this data ever become public. Apple deprecated API access to its devices' UDIDs in iOS 5 for this purpose admid increasing concerns within the research community. [3]
References
[1] Thompson, M. NSUUID / CFUUIDRef / UIDevice -uniqueIdentifier / -identifierForVendor NSHipster
[2] Telephony Manager | Android Developers Google
[3] Foresman, C. Ask Ars: What's the big deal with iPhone UDIDs? Ars Technica
[4] NSUUID Class Reference Apple
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 359
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001090
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Privacy Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-4 Information in Shared Resources (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-4 Information in Shared System Resources
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.1 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M6 Inadequate Privacy Controls
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.dynamic.xtended_preview.often_misused_mobile_udid
Abstract
The target mobile application sends data that looks like a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID) in a request.
Explanation
The mobile application includes data that matches the pattern of a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID) in a request to an external host. UUIDs are used by a mobile application to uniquely identify a single user. This helps the mobile device to sync accounts, personalize content, etc., specific to the user.

UUIDs are recommended to track user-specific workflows, but should not be sent to external vendors or third-party apps for tracking. UUIDs are specifically created to personalize the user's experience within the app. Do not share personally identifiable information (PII) with external entities without the user's consent. Doing so is considered a privacy violation.
References
[1] Android Developers Google
[2] iOS Developers Apple
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 359
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001090
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Privacy Violation
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-4 Information in Shared Resources (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-4 Information in Shared System Resources
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.1 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M6 Inadequate Privacy Controls
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.dynamic.xtended_preview.often_misused_mobile_uuid
Abstract
Relying solely on client-side security controls and failure to perform server-side validation can enable attackers to manipulate sensitive data and adversely affect the application operation.
Explanation
Attackers can manipulate product prices if the application accepts unvalidated data and overrides existing values with the attacker supplied data. Pricing attacks can occur when:
1. The application relies on weak client-side protections such as hidden form input fields and in turn expose sensitive information to manipulation
2. Fails to perform server-side validation against an allow list of acceptable values
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 472
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002420
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[6] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002485 CAT I
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002485 CAT I
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002485 CAT I
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002485 CAT I
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002485 CAT I
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002485 CAT I
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002485 CAT I
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002485 CAT I
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002485 CAT I
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002485 CAT I
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002485 CAT I
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002485 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002485 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002485 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002485 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dynamic.html.often_misused_price_related_fields
Abstract
Failure to adhere to the principle of least privilege amplifies the risk posed by other vulnerabilities.
Explanation
Programs that run with root privileges have caused innumerable Unix security disasters. It is imperative that you carefully review privileged programs for all kinds of security problems, but it is equally important that privileged programs drop back to an unprivileged state as quickly as possible in order to limit the amount of damage that an overlooked vulnerability might be able to cause.


Privilege management functions can behave in some less-than-obvious ways, and they have different quirks on different platforms. These inconsistencies are particularly pronounced if you are transitioning from one non-root user to another.

Signal handlers and spawned processes run at the privilege of the owning process, so if a process is running as root when a signal fires or a sub-process is executed, the signal handler or sub-process will operate with root privileges. An attacker may be able to leverage these elevated privileges to do further damage.
References
[1] H. Chen, D. Wagner, and D. Dean. Setuid Demystified. 11th USENIX Security Symposium
[2] B. Chess and J. West, Secure Programming with Static Analysis. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley, 2007.
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 250
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [15] CWE ID 269
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000345, CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-6 Least Privilege (P1), CM-5 Access Restrictions for Change (P1), CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege, CM-5 Access Restrictions for Change, CM-7 Least Functionality, IA-5 Authenticator Management
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.2.1 Authentication Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.2 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 7.2.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[26] 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
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 250
[28] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 250
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II, APSC-DV-001795 CAT II, APSC-DV-002960 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II, APSC-DV-001795 CAT II, APSC-DV-002960 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.semantic.cpp.often_misused_privilege_management.setuid
Abstract
Failure to adhere to the principle of least privilege amplifies the risk posed by other vulnerabilities.
Explanation
Programs that run with root privileges have caused innumerable Unix security disasters. It is imperative that you carefully review privileged programs for all kinds of security problems, but it is equally important that privileged programs drop back to an unprivileged state as quickly as possible in order to limit the amount of damage that an overlooked vulnerability might cause.


Privilege management functions can behave in some less-than-obvious ways, and they have different quirks on different platforms. These inconsistencies are particularly pronounced if you are transitioning from one non-root user to another.

Signal handlers and spawned processes run at the privilege of the owning process, so if a process is running as root when a signal fires or a sub-process is executed, the signal handler or sub-process will operate with root privileges. An attacker might be able to leverage these elevated privileges to do further damage.
References
[1] H. Chen, D. Wagner, and D. Dean. Setuid Demystified. 11th USENIX Security Symposium
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 250
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [15] CWE ID 269
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000345, CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-6 Least Privilege (P1), CM-5 Access Restrictions for Change (P1), CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege, CM-5 Access Restrictions for Change, CM-7 Least Functionality, IA-5 Authenticator Management
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.2.1 Authentication Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.2 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 7.2.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[25] 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
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 250
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 250
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II, APSC-DV-001795 CAT II, APSC-DV-002960 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II, APSC-DV-001795 CAT II, APSC-DV-002960 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.semantic.golang.often_misused_privilege_management
Abstract
Failure to adhere to the principle of least privilege amplifies the risk posed by other vulnerabilities.
Explanation
Programs that run with root privileges have caused innumerable Unix security disasters. It is imperative that you carefully review privileged programs for all kinds of security problems, but it is equally important that privileged programs drop back to an unprivileged state as quickly as possible in order to limit the amount of damage that an overlooked vulnerability might be able to cause.


Privilege management functions can behave in some less-than-obvious ways, and they have different quirks on different platforms. These inconsistencies are particularly pronounced if you are transitioning from one non-root user to another.

Signal handlers and spawned processes run at the privilege of the owning process, so if a process is running as root when a signal fires or a sub-process is executed, the signal handler or sub-process will operate with root privileges. An attacker may be able to leverage these elevated privileges to do further damage.
References
[1] H. Chen, D. Wagner, and D. Dean. Setuid Demystified. 11th USENIX Security Symposium
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 250
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [15] CWE ID 269
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000345, CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-6 Least Privilege (P1), CM-5 Access Restrictions for Change (P1), CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege, CM-5 Access Restrictions for Change, CM-7 Least Functionality, IA-5 Authenticator Management
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.2.1 Authentication Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.2 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 7.2.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[25] 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
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 250
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 250
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II, APSC-DV-001795 CAT II, APSC-DV-002960 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II, APSC-DV-001795 CAT II, APSC-DV-002960 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.semantic.java.often_misused_privilege_management
Abstract
Failure to adhere to the principle of least privilege amplifies the risk posed by other vulnerabilities.
Explanation
Programs that run with root privileges have caused innumerable Unix security disasters. It is imperative that you carefully review privileged programs for all kinds of security problems, but it is equally important that privileged programs drop back to an unprivileged state as quickly as possible in order to limit the amount of damage that an overlooked vulnerability might be able to cause.


Privilege management functions can behave in some less-than-obvious ways, and they have different quirks on different platforms. These inconsistencies are particularly pronounced if you are transitioning from one non-root user to another.

Signal handlers and spawned processes run at the privilege of the owning process, so if a process is running as root when a signal fires or a sub-process is executed, the signal handler or sub-process will operate with root privileges. An attacker may be able to leverage these elevated privileges to do further damage.
References
[1] H. Chen, D. Wagner, and D. Dean. Setuid Demystified. 11th USENIX Security Symposium
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 250
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [15] CWE ID 269
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000345, CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-6 Least Privilege (P1), CM-5 Access Restrictions for Change (P1), CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege, CM-5 Access Restrictions for Change, CM-7 Least Functionality, IA-5 Authenticator Management
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.2.1 Authentication Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.2 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 7.2.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[25] 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
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 250
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 250
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II, APSC-DV-001795 CAT II, APSC-DV-002960 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II, APSC-DV-001795 CAT II, APSC-DV-002960 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.dataflow.python.often_misused_privilege_management
Abstract
The application performs iOS specific SMS-related operations.
Explanation
iOS specific SMS-related operations should not be performed unless they are essential to the core functionality of an application. Malware written for mobile devices often abuses such functionality to steal money or data from the user.

Example 1: In following cases, the application sends an SMS message or precomposes and presents an SMS message to the user that he or she is prompted to send or cancel:

...
Device.OpenUri("sms:+12345678910");
...
References
[1] Apple UIApplication Class Reference
[2] Apple MFMessageComposeViewController Class Reference
[3] Xamarin Messaging Plugin for Xamarin and Windows
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 265
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.5 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[29] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.semantic.dotnet.often_misused_sms
Abstract
The application performs SMS-related operations.
Explanation
SMS-related operations should not be performed unless they are essential to the core functionality of an application. Malware written for mobile devices often abuses such functionality to steal money or data from the user.

Example 1: In following cases, the application sends an SMS message or precomposes and presents an SMS message to the user that he or she is prompted to send or cancel:

...
[[CTMessageCenter sharedMessageCenter] sendSMSWithText:@"Hello world!" serviceCenter:nil toAddress:@"+12345678910"];
...

// or

...
[[UIApplication sharedApplication] openURL:[NSURL URLWithString:@"sms:+12345678910"]];
...

// or

...
MFMessageComposeViewController *messageComposerVC = [[MFMessageComposeViewController alloc] init];

[messageComposerVC setMessageComposeDelegate:self];
[messageComposerVC setBody:@"Hello World!"];
[messageComposerVC setRecipients:[NSArray arrayWithObject:@"+12345678910"]];

[self presentViewController:messageComposerVC animated:YES completion:nil];
...
References
[1] Apple UIApplication Class Reference
[2] Apple MFMessageComposeViewController Class Reference
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 265
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.5 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[28] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.semantic.objc.often_misused_sms
Abstract
The application performs SMS-related operations.
Explanation
SMS-related operations should not be performed unless they are essential to the core functionality of an application. Malware written for mobile devices often abuses such functionality to steal money or data from the user.

Example 1: In following cases, the application sends an SMS message or precomposes and presents an SMS message to the user that he or she is prompted to send or cancel:


...
UIApplication.sharedApplication().openURL(NSURL(string: "sms:+12345678910"))
...


or


...
let messageComposeVC = MFMessageComposeViewController()
messageComposeVC.messageComposeDelegate = self
messageComposeVC.body = "Hello World!"
messageComposeVC.recipients = ["+12345678910"]

presentViewController(messageComposeVC, animated: true, completion: nil)
...
References
[1] Apple UIApplication Class Reference
[2] Apple MFMessageComposeViewController Class Reference
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 265
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.5 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[28] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.structural.swift.often_misused_sms
Abstract
Remote services are configured in the Spring application. By default, these remote services do not require authentication and information transferred to or from this service is in plain text. This could allow an attacker to access privileged operations or expose sensitive data.
Explanation
Spring provides an easy mechanism to turn any Spring managed bean into an object that is exposed externally via RMI, HTTP, Burlap, Hessian, and JMX protocols. Any public method of the remoted Spring bean can be called externally and the data being passed between the client and the remoted objects are in plain text. The major problem with these services is that they are open by default and provide no guarantees of confidentiality or integrity out of the box.
References
[1] Anirvan Chakraborty , Jessica Ditt , Aleksa Vukotic , Jan Machacek ProSpring 2.5
[2] Gary Mak , Daniel Rubio , Josh Long Spring Recipes
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-000804, CCI-001084, CCI-002165
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1), IA-8 Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users) (P1), SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement, IA-8 Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users), SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 6.5.10
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.4, Requirement 6.5.9
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.4, Requirement 6.5.8
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.4, Requirement 6.5.8
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.4, Requirement 6.5.8
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.4, Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.4, Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3260.1 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3260 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3260 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3260 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3260 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3260 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3260 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.configuration.java.often_misused_spring_remote_service
Abstract
Web services are configured in the Spring application By default, these web services do not require authentication and information transferred to/from this service is in plain text. This could allow an attacker to access privileged operations or expose sensitive data.
Explanation
Spring provides an easy mechanism to turn any Spring managed bean into web services via Spring WS or XFire. Any public method of the remoted Spring bean can be called externally and the data being passed between the client and the web service enabled objects are in plain text. The major problem with these services is that they are open by default and provide no guarantees of confidentiality or integrity out of the box.
References
[1] Anirvan Chakraborty , Jessica Ditt , Aleksa Vukotic , Jan Machacek ProSpring 2.5
[2] Gary Mak , Daniel Rubio , Josh Long Spring Recipes
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-000804, CCI-001084, CCI-002165
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1), IA-8 Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users) (P1), SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement, IA-8 Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users), SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 6.5.10
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.4, Requirement 6.5.9
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.4, Requirement 6.5.8
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.4, Requirement 6.5.8
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.4, Requirement 6.5.8
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.4, Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.4, Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3260.1 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3260 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3260 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3260 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3260 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3260 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3260 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.configuration.java.often_misused_spring_web_service
Abstract
Functions that convert between Multibyte and Unicode strings encourage buffer overflows.
Explanation
Windows provides the MultiByteToWideChar(), WideCharToMultiByte(), UnicodeToBytes(), and BytesToUnicode() functions to convert between arbitrary multibyte (usually ANSI) character strings and Unicode (wide character) strings. The size arguments to these functions are specified in different units--one in bytes, the other in characters--making their use prone to error. In a multibyte character string, each character occupies a varying number of bytes, and therefore the size of such strings is most easily specified as a total number of bytes. In Unicode, however, characters are always a fixed size, and string lengths are typically given by the number of characters they contain. Mistakenly specifying the wrong units in a size argument can lead to a buffer overflow.

Example 1: The following function takes a username specified as a multibyte string and a pointer to a structure for user information and populates the structure with information about the specified user. Since Windows authentication uses Unicode for usernames, the username argument is first converted from a multibyte string to a Unicode string.


void getUserInfo(char *username, struct _USER_INFO_2 info){
WCHAR unicodeUser[UNLEN+1];
MultiByteToWideChar(CP_ACP, 0, username, -1,
unicodeUser, sizeof(unicodeUser));
NetUserGetInfo(NULL, unicodeUser, 2, (LPBYTE *)&info);
}


This function incorrectly passes the size of unicodeUser in bytes instead of characters. The call to MultiByteToWideChar() can therefore write up to (UNLEN+1)*sizeof(WCHAR) wide characters, or (UNLEN+1)*sizeof(WCHAR)*sizeof(WCHAR) bytes, to the unicodeUser array, which has only (UNLEN+1)*sizeof(WCHAR) bytes allocated. If the username string contains more than UNLEN characters, the call to MultiByteToWideChar() will overflow the buffer unicodeUser.
References
[1] Security Considerations: International Features Microsoft
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 176, CWE ID 251
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002824
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.3
[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 SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-16 Memory Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.2 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[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
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3590.1 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3590.1 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3590.1 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3590.1 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3590.1 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3590.1 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3590.1 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Buffer Overflow (WASC-07)
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Buffer Overflow
desc.semantic.cpp.often_misused_strings.multibytewidechar
Abstract
The application uses functionality from sun.misc.Unsafe. All functionality in this class is inherently unsafe to use and can only be accessed via reflection.
Explanation
The sun.misc.Unsafe class is for performing unsafe, low-level operations and is not intended for use by developers.
The Unsafe class can only be obtained by trusted code and is normally obtained through reflection, because it can be used for corrupting the system or manually allocating heap memory that if not properly handled could have detrimental affects on the system. It is imperative that all functionality around sun.misc.Unsafe must be carefully reviewed and tested to be absent of fault.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 676
[2] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[3] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[4] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 676
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT I
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
desc.structural.java.often_misused_sun_misc_unsafe
Abstract
The target server uses a self-signed certificate.
Explanation
Server certificates declare the public key of the server for use in transport layer security. Trusted third-party vendors known as Certificate Authorities (CAs) sign and issue the certificates to ensure that they are authentic and contain the public key of the intended server. The public key of the root CA is embedded in the operating system (OS) by the vendor (e.g. Microsoft for Windows or Apple for macOS). After receipt of a certificate, the client (e.g. a web browser) verifies the identity with the OS's embedded trusted CA. In case of a self-signed certificate, the certificate is signed using its own private key, and the client is unable to verify the certificate owner identity with a trusted CA. Because third-party verification is not possible, attackers can mount a man-in-the-middle attack by issuing a certificate with fake details and a public key that they control.

Clients often display a security warning after encountering a self-signed certificate, although the user can usually override this behavior and manually trust the certificate. However, using self-signed certificates in production can encourage the insecure practice of overriding these certificate warnings without properly verifying the certificate's details, which in turn can make users more susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks.

With a successful man-in-the-middle attack, an attacker can modify or steal sensitive data as it is transmitted. Because self-signed certificates are not verified by a third-party, it is difficult to revoke them. A security issue such as Heartbleed could require servers to revoke their certificates to ensure the effectiveness of bug remediation.
References
[1] Transport Layer Protection Cheat Sheet OWASP
[2] The Hidden Costs of Self-Signed SSL Certificates Thawte
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 296
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [25] CWE ID 295
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000185, CCI-001941, CCI-001942
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), IA-2 Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users) (P1), IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-17 Public Key Infrastructure Certificates (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-10 Non-Repudiation, IA-2 Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users), IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-17 Public Key Infrastructure Certificates
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.1 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M3 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M5 Insecure Communication
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.9
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[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 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3305 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3305 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3305 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3305 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3305 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3305 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3305 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15), Insufficient Authentication (WASC-01)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authentication
desc.dynamic.xtended_preview.often_misused_weak_ssl_certificate
Abstract
The target server included the XDomainRequestAllowed header in an HTTP request with a value of "1," potentially enabling unauthorized cross-domain requests.
Explanation
The XDomainRequestAllowed header, introduced in IE 8, informs browsers that they can make cross-domain requests using the XDomainRequest() object. This can enable an attacker to perform unauthorized cross-domain requests using XDomainRequest() while exploiting a standard Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) flaw. This could allow an attacker to execute JavaScript in the victim's browser to extract information and then send it to a malicious domain using a cross-domain request.
References
[1] IHTMLXDomainRequest interface Microsoft
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 942
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [24] CWE ID 863
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [18] CWE ID 863
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001368, CCI-001414
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement (P1), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement, CM-6 Configuration Settings
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 14.4.6 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.3 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A3 Malicious File Execution
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] 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
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dynamic.xtended_preview.often_misused_xdomainrequestallowed