Certification verification is essential to confirm the counterpart's identity for secure communication. A tls:context element defines a set of TLS connection configurations. Among the configurations, the tls:trust-store element specifies a file that contains certificates from trusted Certificate Authorities that a client uses to verify a certificate presented by a server. By default, the Mule runtime engine verifies the server certificate for every TLS connection.

However, if the value of the insecure attribute of the tls:trust-store element is true, server certificates are accepted without verification.

Example 1: The following Mule configuration sets the insecure attribute to true. As a result, the Mule runtime engine does not verify the server certificate of any connection with the TLS context named demoTlsContext. Such a connection is susceptible to a man-in-the-middle attack.

...
<tls:context name="demoTlsContext">
...
    <tls:trust-store ... insecure="true" ... />
...
<tls:context/>
...

When LLM APIs are not properly configured, a Denial of Wallet (DoW) attack can occur if attackers exploit the cost-per-use model of cloud-based AI services by initiating a high volume of requests. This leads to unsustainable financial burdens on the provider. This can result in financial ruin for the provider, as the cost of processing excessive requests becomes unmanageable.

Example 1: The following code shows how setting the max_completion_tokens parameter to None can increase the chances of producing excessive data. This can overwhelm the resources of the LLM server and potentially lead to a Denial of Wallet (DoW) attack.

import os
from openai import OpenAI

client = OpenAI(api_key='OPENAI_API_KEY')

def generate_safe_response(prompt):
    completion = client.chat.completions.create(
        model="gpt-3.5-turbo",
        timeout=10,
        max_completion_tokens=None,
        messages=[
            {"role": "user", "content": prompt}
        ]
    )
    return completion.choices[0].message

prompt = "Describe the latest advancements in machine learning."
response = generate_safe_response(prompt)
print(response)

In Example 1, the max_completion_tokens parameter limits the length of the output, which helps to ensure that the model does not generate excessively long responses that could cause issues downstream. By controlling the output size, you reduce the risk of generating unintended, potentially harmful content that could lead to security vulnerabilities.

An API operation has been detected that allows credentials to travel over an unencrypted channel. OpenAPI security requirements and target servers definitions for an API operation will always override the respective global settings.

However, when these settings are not defined for an operation, they default to the globally specified values.

Global security requirements inform API consumers of the authentication and authorization parameters required to successfully interact with the API.

An empty Global security definition might enable attackers to interact with sensitive API endpoints and allow them to perform operations that should be restricted to specific user accounts with specific privileges.

Example 1: The following OpenAPI specification declares an empty global security definition. APIs that implement this specification might be vulnerable to unauthorized or unauthenticated access to sensitive operations.

{
    "openapi" : "3.0.3",
    "info" : {
        "title" : "My API",
        "version" : "1.0.0"
    },
    "servers" : [ {
        "url" : "/"
    } ],
    "security" : [],
    ...
}

API operations define security requirements to inform API consumers of the authentication and authorization parameters required to successfully invoke them.

Operations that include an empty security definition might enable attackers to interact with sensitive API endpoints and allow them to perform actions that should be restricted to specific user accounts with explicit privileges.

Example 1: The following OpenAPI specification sets an empty security definition for a sensitive operation. This overrides globally defined security requirements and renders the createUsers operation vulnerable to unauthorized and unauthenticated access.

{
    "openapi": "3.0.0",
    "info": {
     ...
    },    
    "paths": {
      "/users": {
        "post": {
          "security": [],
          "summary": "Create a user",
          "operationId": "createUsers",
         ...
        }
    ...
    }
}

Unencrypted communication channels are prone to eavesdropping and tampering. Servicing client requests over an insecure communication channel allows attackers to perform man-in-the-middle attacks, and gives them access to read or modify the data in transit.

Always configure APIs to use custom error responses instead of relying on the underlying framework's default responses. Default responses might give detailed information about the error that occurred, and inadvertently leak sensitive information.

Attackers may leverage the additional information provided by a default error response to mount attacks targeting the framework, database, or other resources used by the API.

Global security requirements inform API consumers of the authentication and authorization parameters required to successfully interact with the API.

An absent global security definition might enable attackers to interact with sensitive API endpoints and allow them to perform operations that should be restricted to specific user accounts with specific privileges.

Example 1: The following OpenAPI specification neglects to declare a global security definition. APIs that implement this specification might be vulnerable to unauthorized or unauthenticated access to sensitive operations.

{
    "openapi" : "3.0.3",
    "info" : {
        "title" : "My API",
        "version" : "1.0.0"
    },
    "servers" : [ {
        "url" : "https://example.org"
    } ],    
    ...
}

API operations define security requirements to inform API consumers of the authentication and authorization parameters required to successfully invoke them.

Operations that do not include a security definition might enable attackers to interact with sensitive API endpoints and allow them to perform actions that should be restricted to specific user accounts with explicit privileges.

Example 1: The following OpenAPI specification fails to set a security definition for a sensitive operation. Additionally, without a global security definition, the createUsers operation is vulnerable to unauthorized and unauthenticated access.

{
    "openapi": "3.0.0",
    "info": {
     ...
    },    
    "paths": {
      "/users": {
        "post": {
          "summary": "Create a user",
          "operationId": "createUsers",
         ...
        }
    ...
    }
}

The securitySchemes definition specifies the security mechanisms that may be used globally or by specific API operations.

The securitySchemes definition is typically specified under the reusable components object and is referenced globally or by specific operations to dictate security requirements for interaction.

Example 1: The following OpenAPI specification fails to define the securitySchemes definition.

{
    "openapi" : "3.0.3",
    "info" : {
        "title" : "My API",
        "version" : "1.0.0"
    },   
    "components": {
        "schemas": {
        "GeneralError": {
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {            
            ...
            }
        }
}

Global security requirements inform API consumers of the authentication and authorization parameters required to successfully interact with the API.

Optional security requirement entries defined within the global security definition might enable attackers to interact with sensitive API endpoints and allow them to perform operations that should be restricted to specific user accounts with specific privileges.

Example 1: The following OpenAPI specification declares a global security definition with optional security via the empty {} item. APIs that implement this specification might be vulnerable to unauthorized or unauthenticated access to sensitive operations.

{
    "openapi" : "3.0.3",
    "info" : {
        "title" : "My API",
        "version" : "1.0.0"
    },
    "servers" : [ {
        "url" : "/"
    } ],
     "security" : [ {}, { "oauth_auth" : ["write","read" ]} ],
    ...
}

API operations define security requirements to inform API consumers of the authentication and authorization parameters required to successfully invoke them.

Operations that make security optional might enable attackers to interact with sensitive API endpoints and allow them to perform actions that should be restricted to specific user accounts with explicit privileges.

Example 1: The following OpenAPI specification makes security optional by including an empty object {} in the security definition for a sensitive operation. This overrides globally defined security requirements and renders the createUsers operation vulnerable to unauthorized and unauthenticated access.

{
    "openapi": "3.0.0",
    "info": {
     ...
    },    
    "paths": {
      "/users": {
        "post": {
           "security": [
            {},
            {
              "my_auth": [
                "write:users"
              ]
            }
          ],
          "summary": "Create a user",
          "operationId": "createUsers",
         ...
        }
    ...
    }
}

Insecure authentication methods might allow attackers to gain administrative privileges and orchestrate a complete system compromise.

It is never appropriate to use an empty string as a password. It is too easy to guess.

Storing a plain text password in a configuration file allows anyone who can read the file access to the password-protected resource. Developers sometimes believe that they cannot defend the application from someone who has access to the configuration, but this attitude makes an attacker's job easier. Good password management guidelines require that a password never be stored in plain text.

When enabled, the allow_url_fopen option allows PHP functions that accept a filename to operate on remote files using an HTTP or FTP URL. The option, which was introduced in PHP 4.0.4 and is enabled by default, is dangerous because it can allow attackers to introduce malicious content into an application. At best, operating on remote files leaves the application susceptible to attackers who alter the remote file to include malicious content. At worst, if attackers can control a URL that the application operates on, then they can inject arbitrary malicious content into the application by supplying a URL to a remote server.

Example 1: The following code opens a file whose name is controlled by a request parameter and reads its contents. Because the value of $file is controlled by a request parameter, an attacker could violate the programmer's assumptions by providing a URL to a remote file.

<?php
$file = fopen ($_GET["file"], "r");
if (!$file) {
    // handle errors
}
while (!feof ($file)) {
    $line = fgets ($file, 1024);
    // operate on file content
}
fclose($file);
?>

When enabled, the allow_url_include option allows PHP functions that specify a file for inclusion in the current page, such as include() and require(), to accept an HTTP or FTP URL to a remote file. The option, which was introduced in PHP 5.2.0 and is disabled by default, is dangerous because it can allow attackers to introduce malicious content into an application. At best, including remote files leaves the application susceptible to attackers who alter the remote file to include malicious content. At worst, if attackers can control a URL that the application uses to specify the remote file to include, then they can inject arbitrary malicious content into the application by supplying a URL to a remote server.

If the PHP interpreter is installed as a CGI binary then requests for PHP resources are typically redirected by the Web server to the interpreter. In this situation, when a user requests http://www.example.com/content/page.php, the server first performs the necessary access control checks on the directory /content, then redirects control to the PHP interpreter with a request to http://www.example.com/cgi-bin/php/content/page.php.

If cgi.force_redirect, which is enabled by default, is disabled, then attackers with access to /cgi-bin/php can use the permissions of the PHP interpreter to access arbitrary Web documents, thus bypassing any access control checks that would have been performed by the server.

The enable_dl configuration allows dynamic loading of libraries. These could potentially allow an attacker to circumvent the restrictions set with the open_basedir configuration, and potentially allow access to any file on the system.

Enabling enable_dl can make it easier for attackers to exploit other vulnerabilities.

When enabled, the file_uploads option allows PHP users to upload arbitrary files to the server. Permitting users to upload files does not represent a security vulnerability itself. However, this capability can enable a variety attacks because it gives malicious users an avenue to introduce data into the server environment.

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 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.