Kingdom: Input Validation and Representation

Input validation and representation problems ares caused by metacharacters, alternate encodings and numeric representations. Security problems result from trusting input. The issues include: "Buffer Overflows," "Cross-Site Scripting" attacks, "SQL Injection," and many others.

200 items found
Weaknesses
Abstract
The application reflects a user-controllable parameter as the JavaScript callback function to be executed by the browser that might enable an attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript functions on any pages on the same endpoint's domain.
Explanation
The application uses a parameter under the attacker's control as the name of a JavaScript function that the browser will execute. An attacker may create a malicious site which first frames a target page on the same application's domain and then references the vulnerable page in order to execute an arbitrary JavaScript function on the target page. The impact of this attack is similar to the impact of Cross-Site Scripting, though there are some important exploitation restrictions. If alphanumeric and dot characters are allowed to be used as the callback name, the attacker will be able to reference and interact with the elements of the page.

Example 1: The following code constructs a JSONP response where the callback function name can be controlled by the user.


@ControllerAdvice
public class JsonpAdvice extends AbstractJsonpResponseBodyAdvice {
public JsonpAdvice() {
super("callback");
}
}


For a request such as GET /api/latest.json?callback=myCallbackFunction, the controller method will generate a response such as:


HTTP/1.1 200 Ok
Content-Type: application/json; charset=utf-8
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:16:04 GMT
Server: nginx/1.12.1
Content-Length: 225
Connection: Close

myCallbackFunction({<json>})


The attacker can use a JavaScript Script tag to load the response from the JSONP endpoint, which will turn into the execution of the myCallbackFunction function. An attacker could use a different callback name to navigate and interact with the DOM. For example opener.document.body.someElemnt.firstChild.nextElementSibling.submit could be used to locate a form in the target page and submit it.
References
[1] Ben Hayak Same Origin Method Execution (SOME)
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
desc.semantic.java.same_origin_method_execution
Abstract
The application reflects a user-controllable parameter as the JavaScript callback function to be executed by the browser that might enable an attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript functions on any pages on the same endpoint's domain.
Explanation
The application uses a parameter under the attacker's control as the name of a JavaScript function that the browser will execute. An attacker may create a malicious site which first frames a target page on the same application's domain and then references the vulnerable page in order to execute an arbitrary JavaScript function on the target page. The impact of this attack is similar to the impact of Cross-Site Scripting, though there are some important exploitation restrictions. If alphanumeric and dot characters are allowed to be used as the callback name, the attacker will be able to reference and interact with the elements of the page.

Example 1: The following code constructs a JSONP response where the callback function name can be controlled by the user.


def myJSONPService(callback: String) = Action {
val json = getJSONToBeReturned()
Ok(Jsonp(callback, json))
}


For a request such as GET /api/latest.json?callback=myCallbackFunction, the controller method described in Example 1 will generate a response such as:


HTTP/1.1 200 Ok
Content-Type: application/json; charset=utf-8
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:16:04 GMT
Server: nginx/1.12.1
Content-Length: 225
Connection: Close

myCallbackFunction({<json>})


The attacker can use a JavaScript Script tag to load the response from the JSONP endpoint, which will turn into the execution of the myCallbackFunction function. An attacker could use a different callback name to navigate and interact with the DOM. For example opener.document.body.someElemnt.firstChild.nextElementSibling.submit could be used to locate a form in the target page and submit it.
References
[1] Ben Hayak Same Origin Method Execution (SOME)
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
desc.dataflow.scala.same_origin_method_execution
Abstract
Setting sanitizeValue to false allows unsanitized input to lead to vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting.
Explanation
The sanitizeValue property determines whether to run the HTML sanitizer when the value is applied to the HTML markup. The input might come directly from the user and thus can be considered unsafe. The sanitizeValue property can be set to false for multiple reasons, such as allowing additional input characters. However, doing so can inadvertently allow unsafe user input to be executed in the code. It is safer to set the sanitizeValue property to true, which it is by default.

Example 1: The following sets the sanitizeValue property in the SAPUI5 RichTextEditor to false:

new RichTextEditor({
sanitizeValue: false,
value: input
}).placeAt("moreContent");
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 1173
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[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, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.dataflow.javascript.sapui5_misconfiguration_unsanitized_editor
Abstract
The application initiates a network connection to a third-party system using user-controlled data to craft the resource URI.
Explanation
A Server-Side Request Forgery occurs when an attacker can influence a network connection made by the application server. The network connection originates from the application server's internal IP and an attacker can use this connection to bypass network controls and scan or attack internal resources that are not otherwise exposed.

Example 1: In the following example, an attacker can control the URL to which the server is connecting.


...
lv_uri = request->get_form_field( 'uri' ).
CALL METHOD cl_http_utility=>set_request_uri
EXPORTING
request = lo_request
uri = lv_uri.
...


The attacker's ability to hijack the network connection depends on the specific part of the URI they can control, and on the libraries used to establish the connection. For example, controlling the URI scheme lets the attacker use protocols different from http or https such as:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

An attacker can leverage this hijacked network connection to perform the following attacks:

- Port Scanning of intranet resources.
- Bypass firewalls.
- Attack vulnerable programs running on the application server or on the intranet.
- Attack internal/external web applications using Injection attacks or CSRF.
- Access local files using file:// scheme.
- On Windows systems, file:// scheme and UNC paths can allow an attacker to scan and access internal shares.
- Perform a DNS cache poisoning attack.

References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[7] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.abap.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
The application initiates a network connection to a third-party system using user-controlled data to craft the resource URI.
Explanation
A Server-Side Request Forgery occurs when an attacker can influence a network connection made by the application server. The network connection will originate from the application server's internal IP and an attacker can use this connection to bypass network controls and scan or attack internal resources that are not otherwise exposed.

Example 1: In the following example, an attacker can control the URL to which the server is connecting.


...
PageReference ref = ApexPages.currentPage();
Map<String,String> params = ref.getParameters();
HttpRequest req = new HttpRequest();
req.setEndpoint(params.get('url'));
HTTPResponse res = new Http().send(req);


The attacker's ability to hijack the network connection depends on the specific part of the URI that can be controlled, and on the libraries used to establish the connection. For example, controlling the URI scheme lets the attacker use protocols different from http or https such as:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

An attacker can leverage this hijacked network connection to perform the following types of attacks:

- Port Scanning of intranet resources.
- Bypass firewalls.
- Attack vulnerable programs running on the application server or on the intranet.
- Attack internal/external web applications using Injection attacks or CSRF.
- Perform a DNS cache poisoning attack.

References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[7] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.apex.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
The application initiates a network connection to a third-party system using user-controlled data to craft the resource URI.
Explanation
A Server-Side Request Forgery occurs when an attacker can influence a network connection made by the application server. The network connection will originate from the application server's internal IP and an attacker can use this connection to bypass network controls and scan or attack internal resources that are not otherwise exposed.

Example 1: In the following example, an attacker can control the URL to which the server is connecting.


string url = Request.Form["url"];
HttpClient client = new HttpClient();
HttpResponseMessage response = await client.GetAsync(url);


The attacker's ability to hijack the network connection depends on the specific part of the URI that can be controlled, and on the libraries used to establish the connection. For example, controlling the URI scheme lets the attacker use protocols different from http or https like:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

An attacker can leverage this hijacked network connection to perform the following attacks:

- Port Scanning of intranet resources.
- Bypass firewalls.
- Attack vulnerable programs running on the application server or on the intranet.
- Attack internal/external web applications using Injection attacks or CSRF.
- Access local files using file:// scheme.
- On Windows systems, file:// scheme and UNC paths can allow an attacker to scan and access internal shares.
- Perform a DNS cache poisoning attack.

References
[1] Alexander Polyakov SSRF vs. Business critical applications BlackHat 2012
[2] SSRF bible. Cheatsheet ONSec Labs
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[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, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
The application initiates a network connection to a third-party system using user-controlled data to craft the resource URI.
Explanation
A Server-Side Request Forgery occurs when an attacker can influence a network connection made by the application server. The network connection will originate from the application server's internal IP and an attacker can use this connection to bypass network controls and scan or attack internal resources that are not otherwise exposed.

Example 1: In the following example, an attacker can control the URL to which the server is connecting.


char *url = maliciousInput();
CURL *curl = curl_easy_init();
curl_easy_setopt(curl, CURLOPT_URL, url);
CURLcode res = curl_easy_perform(curl);


An attacker's ability to hijack the network connection depends on the specific part of the URI that can be controlled, and on the libraries used to establish the connection. For example, controlling the URI scheme lets the attacker use protocols different from http or https such as:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

An attacker can leverage this hijacked network connection to perform the following attacks:

- Port Scanning of intranet resources.
- Bypass firewalls.
- Attack vulnerable programs running on the application server or on the intranet.
- Attack internal/external web applications using Injection attacks or CSRF.
- Access local files using the file:// scheme.
- On Windows systems, using the file:// scheme and UNC paths can enable an attacker to scan and access internal shares.
- Perform a DNS cache poisoning attack.

References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[7] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.cpp.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
The application initiates a network connection to a third-party system using user-controlled data to craft the resource URI.
Explanation
A Server-Side Request Forgery occurs when an attacker can influence a network connection made by the application server. The network connection originates from the application server's internal IP and an attacker can use this connection to bypass network controls and scan or attack internal resources that are not otherwise exposed.

Example 1: In the following example, an attacker can control the URL to which the server is connecting.


...
final server = await HttpServer.bind('localhost', 18081);
server.listen((request) async {
final headers = request.headers;
final url = headers.value('url');
final client = IOClient();
final response = await client.get(Uri.parse(url!));
...
}


The attacker's ability to hijack the network connection depends on the specific part of the URI that can be controlled, and on the libraries used to establish the connection. For example, controlling the URI scheme lets the attacker use protocols different from http or https such as:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

An attacker can leverage this hijacked network connection to perform the following attacks:

- Port Scanning of intranet resources.
- Bypass firewalls.
- Attack vulnerable programs running on the application server or on the intranet.
- Attack internal/external web applications using Injection attacks or CSRF.
- Access local files using file:// scheme.
- On Windows systems, file:// scheme and UNC paths can allow an attacker to scan and access internal shares.
- Perform a DNS cache poisoning attack.

References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[7] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.dart.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
The application initiates a network connection to a third-party system using user-controlled data to craft the resource URI.
Explanation
A Server-Side Request Forgery occurs when an attacker might influence a network connection made by the application server. The network connection originates from the application server's internal IP address and an attacker can use this connection to bypass network controls and scan or attack internal resources that are not otherwise exposed.

Example 1: In the following example, an attacker can control the URL the server is connecting to.


url := request.Form.Get("url")
res, err =: http.Get(url)
...


The attacker's ability to hijack the network connection depends on the specific part of the URI that can be controlled, and the libraries used to establish the connection. For example, controlling the URI scheme enables the attacker to use protocols different from http or https like:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

An attacker can leverage this hijacked network connection to perform the following attacks:

- Port Scanning of intranet resources.
- Bypass firewalls.
- Attack vulnerable programs running on the application server or on the intranet.
- Attack internal/external web applications using Injection attacks or CSRF.
- Access local files using file:// scheme.
- Scan and access internal shares on Windows systems with file:// scheme and UNC paths.
- Perform a DNS cache poisoning attack.

References
[1] Alexander Polyakov SSRF vs. Business critical applications BlackHat 2012
[2] SSRF bible. Cheatsheet ONSec Labs
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[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, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.golang.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
The application initiates a network connection to a third-party system using user-controlled data to craft the resource URI.
Explanation
A Server-Side Request Forgery occurs when an attacker can influence a network connection made by the application server. The network connection will originate from the application server's internal IP and an attacker can use this connection to bypass network controls and scan or attack internal resources that are not otherwise exposed.

Example 1: In the following example, an attacker can control the URL to which the server is connecting.


String url = request.getParameter("url");
CloseableHttpClient httpclient = HttpClients.createDefault();
HttpGet httpGet = new HttpGet(url);
CloseableHttpResponse response1 = httpclient.execute(httpGet);


The attacker's ability to hijack the network connection depends on the specific part of the URI that can be controlled, and on the libraries used to establish the connection. For example, controlling the URI scheme lets the attacker use protocols different from http or https like:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

An attacker can leverage this hijacked network connection to perform the following attacks:

- Port Scanning of intranet resources.
- Bypass firewalls.
- Attack vulnerable programs running on the application server or on the intranet.
- Attack internal/external web applications using Injection attacks or CSRF.
- Access local files using file:// scheme.
- On Windows systems, file:// scheme and UNC paths can allow an attacker to scan and access internal shares.
- Perform a DNS cache poisoning attack.

References
[1] Alexander Polyakov SSRF vs. Business critical applications BlackHat 2012
[2] SSRF bible. Cheatsheet ONSec Labs
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[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, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.java.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
The application initiates a network connection to a third-party system using user-controlled data to craft the resource URI.
Explanation
A Server-Side Request Forgery occurs when an attacker may influence a network connection made by the application server. The network connection will originate from the application server's internal IP address and an attacker can use this connection to bypass network controls and scan or attack internal resources that are not otherwise exposed.

Example 1: In the following example, an attacker can control the URL to which the server is connecting.


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

function listener(request, response){
var request_url = url.parse(request.url, true)['query']['url'];
http.request(request_url)
...
}
...
http.createServer(listener).listen(8080);
...


The attacker's ability to hijack the network connection depends on the specific part of the URI that can be controlled, and on the libraries used to establish the connection. For example, controlling the URI scheme lets the attacker use protocols different from http or https like:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

An attacker can leverage this hijacked network connection to perform the following attacks:

- Port Scanning of intranet resources.
- Bypass firewalls.
- Attack vulnerable programs running on the application server or on the intranet.
- Attack internal/external web applications using Injection attacks or CSRF.
- Access local files using file:// scheme.
- On Windows systems, file:// scheme and UNC paths can allow an attacker to scan and access internal shares.
- Perform a DNS cache poisoning attack.
References
[1] Alexander Polyakov SSRF vs. Business critical applications BlackHat 2012
[2] SSRF bible. Cheatsheet ONSec Labs
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[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, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.javascript.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
The application initiates a network connection to a third-party system using user-controlled data to craft the resource URI.
Explanation
A Server-Side Request Forgery occurs when an attacker can influence a network connection made by the application server. The network connection will originate from the application server's internal IP and an attacker can use this connection to bypass network controls and scan or attack internal resources that are not otherwise exposed.

Example 1: In the following example, an attacker can control the URL to which the server is connecting.


val url: String = request.getParameter("url")
val httpclient: CloseableHttpClient = HttpClients.createDefault()
val httpGet = HttpGet(url)
val response1: CloseableHttpResponse = httpclient.execute(httpGet)


The attacker's ability to hijack the network connection depends on the specific part of the URI that can be controlled, and on the libraries used to establish the connection. For example, controlling the URI scheme lets the attacker use protocols different from http or https like:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

An attacker can leverage this hijacked network connection to perform the following attacks:

- Port Scanning of intranet resources.
- Bypass firewalls.
- Attack vulnerable programs running on the application server or on the intranet.
- Attack internal/external web applications using Injection attacks or CSRF.
- Access local files using file:// scheme.
- On Windows systems, file:// scheme and UNC paths can allow an attacker to scan and access internal shares.
- Perform a DNS cache poisoning attack.

References
[1] Alexander Polyakov SSRF vs. Business critical applications BlackHat 2012
[2] SSRF bible. Cheatsheet ONSec Labs
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[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, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.kotlin.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
The application initiates a network connection to a third-party system using user-controlled data to craft the resource URI.
Explanation
A Server-Side Request Forgery occurs when an attacker may influence a network connection made by the application server. The network connection will originate from the application server's internal IP address and an attacker will be able to use this connection to bypass network controls and scan or attack internal resources that are not otherwise exposed.

Example 1: In the following example, an attacker can control the URL to which the server is connecting.


$url = $_GET['url'];
$c = curl_init();
curl_setopt($c, CURLOPT_POST, 0);
curl_setopt($c,CURLOPT_URL,$url);
$response=curl_exec($c);
curl_close($c);


The attacker's ability to hijack the network connection depends on the specific part of the URI that can be controlled, and on the libraries used to establish the connection. For example, controlling the URI scheme lets the attacker use protocols different from http or https like:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

An attacker can leverage this hijacked network connection to perform the following attacks:

- Port Scanning of intranet resources.
- Bypass firewalls.
- Attack vulnerable programs running on the application server or on the intranet.
- Attack internal/external web applications using Injection attacks or CSRF.
- Access local files using file:// scheme.
- On Windows systems, file:// scheme and UNC paths can allow an attacker to scan and access internal shares.
- Perform a DNS cache poisoning attack.

References
[1] Alexander Polyakov SSRF vs. Business critical applications BlackHat 2012
[2] SSRF bible. Cheatsheet ONSec Labs
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[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, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.php.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
The application initiates a network connection to a third-party system using user-controlled data to craft the resource URI.
Explanation
A Server-Side Request Forgery occurs when an attacker may influence a network connection made by the application server. The network connection will originate from the application server's internal IP address and an attacker will be able to use this connection to bypass network controls and scan or attack internal resources that are not otherwise exposed.

Example 1: In the following example, an attacker can control the URL to which the server is connecting.


url = request.GET['url']
handle = urllib.urlopen(url)


The attacker's ability to hijack the network connection depends on the specific part of the URI that can be controlled, and on the libraries used to establish the connection. For example, controlling the URI scheme lets the attacker use protocols different from http or https like:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

An attacker can leverage this hijacked network connection to perform the following attacks:

- Port Scanning of intranet resources.
- Bypass firewalls.
- Attack vulnerable programs running on the application server or on the intranet.
- Attack internal/external web applications using Injection attacks or CSRF.
- Access local files using file:// scheme.
- On Windows systems, file:// scheme and UNC paths can allow an attacker to scan and access internal shares.
- Perform a DNS cache poisoning attack.

References
[1] Alexander Polyakov SSRF vs. Business critical applications BlackHat 2012
[2] SSRF bible. Cheatsheet ONSec Labs
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[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, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.python.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
The application initiates a network connection to a third-party system using user-controlled data to craft the resource URI.
Explanation
A Server-Side Request Forgery occurs when an attacker may influence a network connection made by the application server. The network connection will originate from the application server's internal IP address and an attacker will be able to use this connection to bypass network controls and scan or attack internal resources that are not otherwise exposed.

Example 1: In the following example, an attacker can control the URL to which the server is connecting.


url = req['url']
Net::HTTP.get(url)


The attacker's ability to hijack the network connection depends on the specific part of the URI that can be controlled, and on the libraries used to establish the connection. For example, controlling the URI scheme lets the attacker use protocols different from http or https like:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

An attacker can leverage this hijacked network connection to perform the following attacks:

- Port Scanning of intranet resources.
- Bypass firewalls.
- Attack vulnerable programs running on the application server or on the intranet.
- Attack internal/external web applications using Injection attacks or CSRF.
- Access local files using file:// scheme.
- On Windows systems, file:// scheme and UNC paths can allow an attacker to scan and access internal shares.
- Perform a DNS cache poisoning attack.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[7] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.ruby.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
The application initiates a network connection to a third-party system using user-controlled data to craft the resource URI.
Explanation
A Server-Side Request Forgery occurs when an attacker may influence a network connection made by the application server. The network connection will originate from the application server's internal IP address and an attacker will be able to use this connection to bypass network controls and scan or attack internal resources that are not otherwise exposed.

Example 1: In the following example, an attacker can control the URL to which the server is connecting.


def getFile(url: String) = Action { request =>
...
val url = request.body.asText.getOrElse("http://google.com")

ws.url(url).get().map { response =>
Ok(s"Request sent to $url")
}
...
}


The attacker's ability to hijack the network connection depends on the specific part of the URI that can be controlled, and on the libraries used to establish the connection. For example, controlling the URI scheme lets the attacker use protocols different from http or https like:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

An attacker can leverage this hijacked network connection to perform the following attacks:

- Port Scanning of intranet resources.
- Bypass firewalls.
- Attack vulnerable programs running on the application server or on the intranet.
- Attack internal/external web applications using Injection attacks or CSRF.
- Access local files using file:// scheme.
- On Windows systems, file:// scheme and UNC paths can allow an attacker to scan and access internal shares.
- Perform a DNS cache poisoning attack.

References
[1] Alexander Polyakov SSRF vs. Business critical applications BlackHat 2012
[2] SSRF bible. Cheatsheet ONSec Labs
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[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, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.scala.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
The application initiates a network connection to a third-party system using user-controlled data to craft the resource URI.
Explanation
A Server-Side Request Forgery occurs when an attacker can influence a network connection made by the application server. The network connection originates from the application server's internal IP and an attacker can use this connection to bypass network controls and scan or attack internal resources that are otherwise not exposed.

Example 1: Example of a user checking details of a given product.

POST /checkDetails HTTP/1.1

url=https://example.com/product/1
Example 2: A few examples of how an attacker that has control over the url parameter can tamper the request in Example 1.

POST /checkDetails HTTP/1.1

url=https://localhost.com/admin

POST /checkDetails HTTP/1.1

url=file:///etc/passwd



The attacker's ability to hijack the network connection depends on the specific part of the URI that can be controlled, and on the libraries used to establish the connection. For example, controlling the URI scheme lets the attacker use protocols different from http or https like:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

An attacker can leverage this hijacked network connection to perform the following attacks:

- Port Scanning of intranet resources.
- Bypass firewalls.
- Access authorization credentials.
- Attack vulnerable programs running on the application server or on the intranet.
- Gain remote code execution.
- Access local files.

References
[1] Alexander Polyakov SSRF vs. Business critical applications BlackHat 2012
[2] SSRF bible. Cheatsheet ONSec Labs
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[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, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dynamic.xtended_preview.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
Failure to validate user-supplied input can enable an attacker to bypass authentication, steal sensitive information, or trigger a denial of service condition.
Explanation
Platforms such as Node.js and MongoDB server rely solely on JavaScript for all critical server-side operations. MongoDB uses JavaScript internally for scripting server-side operation routines (such as Map/Reduce), to perform group-by operations, or to populate query content in the $where clause. Node.js is used to build fast and scalable network applications in JavaScript.
Using JavaScript programmers can dynamically invoke server-side routines, construct procedures dynamically and perform network operations.

A server-side injection vulnerability can occur when:
1. The user supplied input is not validated thoroughly before being used to invoke server-side JavaScript procedures, an attacker can supply malicious input specially crafted to modify the behavior of a script in an unintended way.
2. Using unvalidated user input directly in 'eval' calls
3. Appending user input to dynamically generated JavaScript code

These issues pose severe risks to the application:
Denial of Service (DoS):
DoS attacks against traditional web applications involves sending thousands of HTTP requests. Applications vulnerable to server-side JavaScript injection can attacked using a single line of code. For example, by injecting while(1) into an eval function, the attacker could trigger excessive resource consumption and severely impact the application availability.
Unauthorized File System Access:
Attackers can abuse the file system access APIs such as CommonJS and the 'fs' module. The following payload can enable an attacker to read arbitrary file contents.
response.end(require('fs').readFileSync(filename))
NoSQL injection
Applications that dynamically build a $where clause using unvalidated user input can be exploited by injecting malicious javascript code to alter the query and extract information from the database or injecting a call to the sleep function and affecting the availability of the application.
1';sleep(33333);var%20a='
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 94
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - 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 6.5.2
[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, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dynamic.xtended_preview.server_side_script_injection
Abstract
User-controlled data is used as a template engine's template, allowing attackers to access the template context and in some cases inject and run arbitrary code on the application server.
Explanation
Template engines are used to render content using dynamic data. This context data is normally controlled by the user and formatted by the template to generate web pages, emails, and the like. Template engines allow powerful language expressions to be used in templates in order to render dynamic content, by processing the context data with code constructs such as conditionals, loops, etc. If an attacker is able to control the template to be rendered, they will be able to inject expressions that will expose context data or even run arbitrary commands on the server.

Example 1: The following example shows how a template is retrieved from an HTTP request and rendered.

// Set up the context data
VelocityContext context = new VelocityContext();
context.put( "name", user.name );

// Load the template
String template = getUserTemplateFromRequestBody(request);
RuntimeServices runtimeServices = RuntimeSingleton.getRuntimeServices();
StringReader reader = new StringReader(template);
SimpleNode node = runtimeServices.parse(reader, "myTemplate");
template = new Template();
template.setRuntimeServices(runtimeServices);
template.setData(node);
template.initDocument();

// Render the template with the context data
StringWriter sw = new StringWriter();
template.merge( context, sw );
Example 1 uses Velocity as the template engine. For that engine, an attacker could submit the following template to run arbitrary commands on the server:

$name.getClass().forName("java.lang.Runtime").getRuntime().exec(<COMMAND>)
References
[1] Server-Side Template Injection: RCE for the modern webapp
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.server_side_template_injection
Abstract
User-controlled data is used as a template engine's template, which allows attackers to access the template context and in some cases inject and run arbitrary code on the application server.
Explanation
Template engines are used to render content using dynamic data. This context data is normally controlled by the user and formatted by the template to generate web pages, emails, and so on. Template engines allow powerful language expressions to be used in templates to render dynamic content, by processing the context data with code constructs such as conditionals, loops, etc. If an attacker can control the template to be rendered, they can inject expressions that expose context data or even run arbitrary commands on the server.

Example 1: The following example shows how a template is retrieved from an HTTP request and rendered.

app.get('/', function(req, res){
var template = _.template(req.params['template']);
res.write("<html><body><h2>Hello World!</h2>" + template() + "</body></html>");
});
Example 1 uses Underscore.js as the template engine within a Node.js application. For that engine, an attacker could submit the following template to run arbitrary commands on the server:

<% cp = process.mainModule.require('child_process');cp.exec(<COMMAND>); %>
References
[1] Server-Side Template Injection: RCE for the modern webapp
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.javascript.server_side_template_injection
Abstract
User-controlled data is used as a template engine's template, allowing attackers to access the template context and in some cases inject and run arbitrary code on the application server.
Explanation
Template engines are used to render content using dynamic data. This context data is normally controlled by the user and formatted by the template to generate web pages, emails, and the like. Template engines allow powerful language expressions to be used in templates in order to render dynamic content, by processing the context data with code constructs such as conditionals, loops, etc. If an attacker can control the template to be rendered, they can inject expressions that expose context data or even run arbitrary commands on the server.

Example 1: The following example shows how a template is retrieved from an HTTP request and rendered using the Jinja2 template engine.

from django.http import HttpResponse
from jinja2 import Template as Jinja2_Template
from jinja2 import Environment, DictLoader, escape

def process_request(request):
# Load the template
template = request.GET['template']
t = Jinja2_Template(template)
name = source(request.GET['name'])
# Render the template with the context data
html = t.render(name=escape(name))
return HttpResponse(html)
Example 1 uses Jinja2 as the template engine. For that engine, an attacker could submit the following template to read arbitrary files from the server:

template={{''.__class__.__mro__[2].__subclasses__()[40]('/etc/passwd').read()}}
Example 2: The following example shows how a template is retrieved from an HTTP request and rendered using the Django template engine.

from django.http import HttpResponse
from django.template import Template, Context, Engine

def process_request(request):
# Load the template
template = source(request.GET['template'])
t = Template(template)
user = {"name": "John", "secret":getToken()}
ctx = Context(locals())
html = t.render(ctx)
return HttpResponse(html)
Example 2 uses Django as the template engine. For that engine, an attacker will not be able to execute arbitrary commands, but they will be able to access all the objects in the template context. In this example, a secret token is available in the context and could be leaked by the attacker.
References
[1] Server-Side Template Injection: RCE for the modern webapp BlackHat
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.server_side_template_injection
Abstract
Attackers may modify Spring session attributes which may lead to application logic abuse.
Explanation
A class annotated with @SessionAttributes will mean Spring replicates changes to model attributes in the session object. If an attacker is able to store arbitrary values within a model attribute, these changes will be replicated in the session object where they may be trusted by the application. If the session attribute is initialized with trusted data which the user should not be able to modify, the attacker may be able to conduct a Session Puzzling attack and abuse the application logic.

Example 1: The following controller contains a method which loads the user data into the session upon a successful login.


@Controller
@SessionAttributes("user")
public class HomeController {
...
@RequestMapping(value= "/auth", method=RequestMethod.POST)
public String authHandler(@RequestParam String username, @RequestParam String password, RedirectAttributes attributes, Model model) {
User user = userService.findByNamePassword(username, password);
if (user == null) {
// Handle error
...
} else {
// Handle success
attributes.addFlashAttribute("user", user);
return "redirect:home";
}
}
...
}


A different controller handles the reset password feature. It tries to load the User instance from the session since the class is annotated with @SessionAttributes("user") and uses it to verify the reset password question.


@Controller
@SessionAttributes("user")
public class ResetPasswordController {

@RequestMapping(value = "/resetQuestion", method = RequestMethod.POST)
public String resetQuestionHandler(@RequestParam String answerReset, SessionStatus status, User user, Model model) {

if (!user.getAnswer().equals(answerReset)) {
// Handle error
...
} else {
// Handle success
...
}
}
}


The developer's intention was to load the user instance from the session where it was stored during the login process. However Spring will check the request and will try to bind its data into the model user instance. If the received request contains data that can be bound to the User class, Spring will merge the received data into the user session attribute. This scenario can be abused by submitting both an arbitrary answer in the answerReset query parameter and the same value to override the value stored in the session. This way, the attacker may set an arbitrary new password for random users.
References
[1] Alexey Tyurin Spring MVC and Autobinding vulns.
[2] Alexey Tyurin Autobinding vulns and Spring MVC
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-001664, CCI-001941, CCI-001942
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-2 Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users) (P1), SC-23 Session Authenticity (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-2 Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users), SC-23 Session Authenticity, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API2 Broken Authentication
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M9 Improper Session Handling
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A7 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A2 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A2 Broken Authentication
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.10
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.10
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3405 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3405 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3405 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3405 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3405 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3405 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3405 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
desc.dataflow.java.session_puzzling_spring
Abstract
Allowing external control of system settings can disrupt service or cause an application to behave in unexpected ways.
Explanation
Setting manipulation vulnerabilities occur when an attacker can control values that govern the behavior of the system, manage specific resources, or in some way affect the functionality of the application.



Because setting manipulation covers a diverse set of functions, any attempt to illustrate it will inevitably be incomplete. Rather than searching for a tight-knit relationship between the functions addressed in the setting manipulation category, take a step back and consider the sorts of system values that an attacker must not be allowed to control.

Example 1: The following PHP code snippet reads a parameter from an HTTP request and sets it as the service database connection.


...
taintedConnectionStr = request->get_form_field( 'dbconn_name' ).
TRY.
DATA(con) = cl_sql_connection=>get_connection( `R/3*` && taintedConnectionStr ).
...
con->close( ).
CATCH cx_sql_exception INTO FINAL(exc).
...
ENDTRY.


In this example, an attacker could cause an error by providing a nonexistent database connection in ABAP DBCON table or connect to an unauthorized portion of the database.

In general, do not allow user-provided or otherwise untrusted data to control sensitive values. The leverage that an attacker gains by controlling these values is not always immediately obvious, but do not underestimate the creativity of your attacker.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[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 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.abap.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing external control of system settings can disrupt service or cause an application to behave in unexpected ways.
Explanation
Setting manipulation vulnerabilities occur when an attacker can control values that govern the behavior of the system, manage specific resources, or in some way affect the functionality of the application.

Because setting manipulation covers a diverse set of functions, any attempt to illustrate it will inevitably be incomplete. Rather than searching for a tight-knit relationship between the functions addressed in the setting manipulation category, take a step back and consider the sorts of system values that an attacker should not be allowed to control.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[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 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing external control of system settings can disrupt service or cause an application to behave in unexpected ways.
Explanation
Setting manipulation vulnerabilities occur when an attacker can control values that govern the behavior of the system, manage specific resources, or in some way affect the functionality of the application.

Because setting manipulation covers a diverse set of functions, any attempt to illustrate it will inevitably be incomplete. Rather than searching for a tight-knit relationship between the functions addressed in the setting manipulation category, take a step back and consider the sorts of system values that an attacker should not be allowed to control.

Example 1: The following C code accepts a number as one of its command line parameters and sets it as the host ID of the current machine.


...
sethostid(argv[1]);
...


Although a process must be privileged to successfully invoke sethostid(), unprivileged users may be able to invoke the program. The code in this example allows user input to directly control the value of a system setting. If an attacker provides a malicious value for host ID, the attacker may misidentify the affected machine on the network or cause other unintended behavior.

In general, do not allow user-provided or otherwise untrusted data to control sensitive values. The leverage that an attacker gains by controlling these values is not always immediately obvious, but do not underestimate the creativity of your attacker.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[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 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.cpp.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing external control of system settings can disrupt service or cause an application to behave in unexpected ways.
Explanation
Setting manipulation vulnerabilities occur when an attacker can control values that govern the behavior of the system, manage specific resources, or in some way affect the functionality of the application.



Because setting manipulation covers a diverse set of functions, any attempt to illustrate it will inevitably be incomplete. Rather than searching for a tight-knit relationship between the functions addressed in the setting manipulation category, take a step back and consider the sorts of system values that an attacker should not be allowed to control.

Example 1: The following COBOL code snippet reads values from the terminal and uses them to compute the options used to establish access to a queue object.


...
ACCEPT OPT1.
ACCEPT OPT2
COMPUTE OPTS = OPT1 + OPT2.
CALL 'MQOPEN' USING HCONN, OBJECTDESC, OPTS, HOBJ, COMPOCODE REASON.
...


In this example, an attacker could supply an option that allows shared rather than exclusive access to the queue.

In general, do not allow user-provided or otherwise untrusted data to control sensitive values. The leverage that an attacker gains by controlling these values is not always immediately obvious, but do not underestimate the creativity of your attacker.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[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 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.cobol.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing external control of system settings can disrupt service or cause an application to behave in unexpected ways.
Explanation
Setting manipulation vulnerabilities occur when an attacker can control values that govern the behavior of the system, manage specific resources, or in some way affect the functionality of the application.

Because setting manipulation covers a diverse set of functions, any attempt to illustrate it will inevitably be incomplete. Rather than searching for a tight-knit relationship between the functions addressed in the setting manipulation category, take a step back and consider the sorts of system values that an attacker should not be allowed to control.

Example 1: The following code reads a number from a web form and uses it to set the timeout value in an initialization file.


...
<cfset code = SetProfileString(IniPath,
Section, "timeout", Form.newTimeout)>
...


Because the value of Form.newTimeout is used to specify a timeout, an attacker may be able to mount a denial of service (DoS) attack against the application by specifying a sufficiently large number.

In general, do not allow user-provided or otherwise untrusted data to control sensitive values. The leverage that an attacker gains by controlling these values is not always immediately obvious, but do not underestimate the creativity of your attacker.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[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 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.cfml.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing external control of system settings can disrupt service or cause an application to behave in unexpected ways.
Explanation
Setting manipulation vulnerabilities occur when an attacker can control values that govern the behavior of the system, manage specific resources, or in some way affect the functionality of the application.



Because setting manipulation covers a diverse set of functions, any attempt to illustrate it will inevitably be incomplete. Rather than searching for a tight-knit relationship between the functions addressed in the setting manipulation category, take a step back and consider the sorts of system values that an attacker should not be allowed to control.

Example 1: The following code snippet sets an environment variable with user-controlled data.


...
catalog := request.Form.Get("catalog")
path := request.Form.Get("path")
os.Setenv(catalog, path)
...


In this example, an attacker could set any arbitrary environment variable and affect how other applications work.

In general, do not allow user-provided or otherwise untrusted data to control sensitive values. The leverage that an attacker gains by controlling these values is not always obvious, but do not underestimate the creativity of your attacker.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[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 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.golang.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing external control of system settings can disrupt service or cause an application to behave in unexpected ways.
Explanation
Setting manipulation vulnerabilities occur when an attacker can control values that govern the behavior of the system, manage specific resources, or in some way affect the functionality of the application.



Because setting manipulation covers a diverse set of functions, any attempt to illustrate it will inevitably be incomplete. Rather than searching for a tight-knit relationship between the functions addressed in the setting manipulation category, take a step back and consider the sorts of system values that an attacker should not be allowed to control.

Example 1: The following Java code snippet reads a string from an HttpServletRequest and sets it as the active catalog for a database Connection.


...
conn.setCatalog(request.getParamter("catalog"));
...


In this example, an attacker could cause an error by providing a nonexistent catalog name or connect to an unauthorized portion of the database.

In general, do not allow user-provided or otherwise untrusted data to control sensitive values. The leverage that an attacker gains by controlling these values is not always immediately obvious, but do not underestimate the creativity of your attacker.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[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 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing external control of system settings can disrupt service or cause an application to behave in unexpected ways.
Explanation
Setting manipulation vulnerabilities occur when an attacker can control values that govern the behavior of the system, manage specific resources, or in some way affect the functionality of the application.



Because setting manipulation covers a diverse set of functions, any attempt to illustrate it will inevitably be incomplete. Rather than searching for a tight-knit relationship between the functions addressed in the setting manipulation category, take a step back and consider the sorts of system values that an attacker should not be allowed to control.

Example 1: The following Node.js code snippet reads a string from an http.IncomingMessage request variable and uses it to set additional V8 commnd line flags.


var v8 = require('v8');
...
var flags = url.parse(request.url, true)['query']['flags'];
...
v8.setFlagsFromString(flags);
...


In this example, an attacker could cause various different flags to be set on the VM, which may result in unpredictable behavior including crashing the program and potentially data loss.

In general, do not allow user-provided or otherwise untrusted data to control sensitive values. The leverage that an attacker gains by controlling these values is not always immediately obvious, but do not underestimate the creativity of your attacker.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[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 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.javascript.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing external control of system settings can disrupt service or cause an application to behave in unexpected ways.
Explanation
Setting manipulation vulnerabilities occur when an attacker can control values that govern the behavior of the system, manage specific resources, or in some way affect the functionality of the application.



Because setting manipulation covers a diverse set of functions, any attempt to illustrate it will inevitably be incomplete. Rather than searching for a tight-knit relationship between the functions addressed in the setting manipulation category, take a step back and consider the sorts of system values that an attacker should not be allowed to control.

Example 1: The following PHP code snippet reads a parameter from an HTTP request and sets it as the active catalog for a database connection.


<?php
...
$table_name=$_GET['catalog'];
$retrieved_array = pg_copy_to($db_connection, $table_name);
...
?>


In this example, an attacker could cause an error by providing a nonexistent catalog name or connect to an unauthorized portion of the database.

In general, do not allow user-provided or otherwise untrusted data to control sensitive values. The leverage that an attacker gains by controlling these values is not always immediately obvious, but do not underestimate the creativity of your attacker.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[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 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.php.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing external control of system settings can disrupt service or cause an application to behave in unexpected ways.
Explanation
Setting manipulation vulnerabilities occur when an attacker can control values that govern the behavior of the system, manage specific resources, or in some way affect the functionality of the application.



Because setting manipulation covers a diverse set of functions, any attempt to illustrate it will inevitably be incomplete. Rather than searching for a tight-knit relationship between the functions addressed in the setting manipulation category, take a step back and consider the sorts of system values that an attacker should not be allowed to control.

Example 1: The following code snippet sets an environment variable using user-controlled data.


...
catalog = request.GET['catalog']
path = request.GET['path']
os.putenv(catalog, path)
...


In this example, an attacker could set any arbitrary environment variable and affect how other applications work.

In general, do not allow user-provided or otherwise untrusted data to control sensitive values. The leverage that an attacker gains by controlling these values is not always immediately obvious, but do not underestimate the creativity of your attacker.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[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 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing external control of system settings can disrupt service or cause an application to behave in unexpected ways.
Explanation
Setting manipulation vulnerabilities occur when an attacker can control values that govern the behavior of the system, manage specific resources, or in some way affect the functionality of the application.



Because setting manipulation covers a diverse set of functions, any attempt to illustrate it will inevitably be incomplete. Rather than searching for a tight-knit relationship between the functions addressed in the setting manipulation category, take a step back and consider the sorts of system values that an attacker should not be allowed to control.

Example 1: The following Scala code snippet reads a string from an Http Request and sets it as the active catalog for a database Connection.


def connect(catalog: String) = Action { request =>
...
conn.setCatalog(catalog)
...
}


In this example, an attacker could cause an error by providing a nonexistent catalog name or connect to an unauthorized portion of the database.

In general, do not allow user-provided or otherwise untrusted data to control sensitive values. The leverage that an attacker gains by controlling these values is not always immediately obvious, but do not underestimate the creativity of your attacker.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[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 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.scala.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing external control of system settings can disrupt service or cause an application to behave in unexpected ways.
Explanation
Setting manipulation vulnerabilities occur when an attacker can control values that govern the behavior of the system, manage specific resources, or in some way affect the functionality of the application.

Because setting manipulation covers a diverse set of functions, any attempt to illustrate it will inevitably be incomplete. Rather than searching for a tight-knit relationship between the functions addressed in the setting manipulation category, take a step back and consider the sorts of system values that an attacker should not be allowed to control.

Example 1: The following code configures the SQL log handler and uses a value controllable by the user.


...
sqlite3(SQLITE_CONFIG_LOG, user_controllable);
...


In general, do not allow user-provided or otherwise untrusted data to control sensitive values. The leverage that an attacker gains by controlling these values is not always immediately obvious, but do not underestimate the creativity of your attacker.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[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 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.swift.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing external control of system settings can disrupt service or cause an application to behave in unexpected ways.
Explanation
Setting manipulation vulnerabilities occur when an attacker can control values that govern the behavior of the system, manage specific resources, or in some way affect the functionality of the application.



Because setting manipulation covers a diverse set of functions, any attempt to illustrate it will inevitably be incomplete. Rather than searching for a tight-knit relationship between the functions addressed in the setting manipulation category, take a step back and consider the sorts of system values that an attacker should not be allowed to control.

Example 1: The following VB code snippet reads a string from a Request object and sets it as the active catalog for a database Connection.


...
Dim conn As ADODB.Connection
Set conn = New ADODB.Connection
Dim rsTables As ADODB.Recordset
Dim Catalog As New ADOX.Catalog
Set Catalog.ActiveConnection = conn
Catalog.Create Request.Form("catalog")
...


In this example, an attacker could cause an error by providing a nonexistent catalog name or connect to an unauthorized portion of the database.

In general, do not allow user-provided or otherwise untrusted data to control sensitive values. The leverage that an attacker gains by controlling these values is not always immediately obvious, but do not underestimate the creativity of your attacker.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[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 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.vb.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing external control of system settings can disrupt service or cause an application to behave in unexpected ways.
Explanation
Setting manipulation vulnerabilities occur when an attacker can control values that govern the behavior of the system, manage specific resources, or in some way affect the functionality of the application.
Allowing a user to control the character encoding used to parse the HTTP response of a given request can allow an attacker to evade certain validation mechanisms used for Cross-site Scripting.
The response character encoding is used by a web browser to decide how to interpret the characters in the body of the HTTP response. The most common encoding used by web applications today is UTF-8. The character set (charset) declaration is usually done through a header in the HTTP response or using the HTML <meta> tag. Only the application should control these declarations. If this declaration is controlled through user input, then an attacker can use this feature to modify the charset that the browser uses and modify the interpretation of the contents of the response. This can enable Cross-site Scripting attacks that would otherwise not have succeeded while using UTF-8 encoding.


Example 1:
+ADw-script+AD4-alert(document.location)+ADw-/script+AD4

The previous string means nothing in most encoding types, and therefore is "safe", but when a victim views this under utf-7 encoding, it is interpreted as valid HTML tag and, the script is executed.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 116
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A2 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A2 Broken Authentication
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3530 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Content Spoofing (WASC-12)
desc.dynamic.xtended_preview.setting_manipulation_character_set
Abstract
The application allows a user to define an allow list, which may give them the ability to mark malicious input as safe.
Explanation
Frameworks often have allow lists for validation to protect against vulnerabilities.

Example 1: The following allows a malicious user to set the allow list that is used by AngularJS to determine what types of links images can retrieve.

myModule.config(function($compileProvider){
$compileProvider.imgSrcSanitizationWhitelist(userInput);
});


This may seem fine, but if the user sets the regular expression to /^(http(s)?|javascript):.*/, the application will then allow the use of inline JavaScript within image source URLs, which may lead to cross-site scripting attacks.
Other instances of allow lists may be preventing all different types of attacks, especially injection attacks such as cross-site scripting, command injection, SQL injection, along with business logic flaws.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.javascript.setting_manipulation_user_controlled_allow_list
Abstract
The application allows a user to define the action for processing an approval request, which can lead to fraudulent transactions or privilege escalation.
Explanation
If users are allowed to control the action for processing an approval request, a malicious user can potentially reject legitimate requests or approve fraudulent ones, leading to data corruption, denial of service, or privilege escalation.

Example 1: The following code allows external user input to control the approval action in a ProcessWorkitemRequest.setAction() call.

void processRequest() {
String workItemId = ApexPages.currentPage().getParameters().get('Id');
String action = ApexPages.currentPage().getParameters().get('Action');

Approval.ProcessWorkitemRequest req = new Approval.ProcessWorkitemRequest();
req.setWorkitemId(workItemId);
req.setAction(action);

Approval.ProcessResult res = Approval.process(req);
...
}


One way an attacker could exploit this code is by initially submitting an approval request to modify the roles or access permissions associated with their account. They could then tamper with the query parameters to ensure their request gets improperly approved, potentially resulting in unauthorized privilege escalation.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.apex.setting_manipulation_user_controlled_approval_action
Abstract
The application allows a user to define expression delimiters, which may give them the ability to get around cross-site scripting protections.
Explanation
When you allow users to define the delimiters used by templating engines it means that protections that were previously implemented may no longer work, or may be invalid. In the most benign version of this, it may lead to functionality not working as expected or leaking information, 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 a start symbol defined from the hash inside the URL.



var hash = window.location.hash;
var myStartSymbol = decodeURIComponent(hash.substring(1, hash.length));

myModule.config(function($interpolateProvider){
$interpolateProvider.startSymbol(myStartSymbol);
});


This is usually done to enable multiple template engines to work together, which in itself is extremely dangerous [1], but this may lead to engines being run 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 - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.javascript.setting_manipulation_user_controlled_expression_delimiters
Abstract
Executing SOQL queries with data from untrusted sources may allow access to unauthorized data.
Explanation
The Salesforce Object Query Language (SOQL) is intended to retrieve specific information from the application database; one cannot change such data using SOQL queries.

Salesforce Object Query Language (SOQL) injection errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.


2. The data is used to dynamically construct a SOQL query without any pre-processing or sanitization.
Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SOQL query that searches for contacts with a specified name.


...
public String inputValue {
get { return inputValue; }
set { inputValue = value; }
}
...
String queryString = 'SELECT Id FROM Contact WHERE (IsDeleted = false AND Name like \'%' + inputValue + '%\')';
result = Database.query(queryString);
...


This code intends to execute the query as follows:


SELECT Id FROM Contact WHERE (IsDeleted = false AND Name like '%inputValue%')


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if inputValue does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker enters the string name') OR (Name like '% for inputValue, then the query becomes the following:


SELECT Id FROM Contact WHERE (IsDeleted = false AND Name like '%name') OR (Name like '%%')


The addition of the name') OR (Name like '% condition causes the where clause to use the LIKE '%%' condition, which will force the query to output all possible ID values, since it becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:


SELECT Id FROM Contact WHERE ... OR (Name like '%%')


Unlike most of database interfaces, SOQL in the force.com platform does not support multiple SOQL statements separated by semicolons, which means that it is not possible to concatenate several commands in a single query as is the case with regular SQL injection attacks. Also, note that Apex database does not support comments, so every single quote, parenthesis or other special character must be paired.
References
[1] Salesforce Developers Technical Library Secure Coding SQL Injection
[2] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[3] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[4] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[5] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.apex.soql_injection
Abstract
Executing SOSL queries with data from untrusted sources may allow access to unauthorized data.
Explanation
Salesforce Object Search Language (SOSL) is the Salesforce platform search language that is used to perform text searches in records. Use SOSL to search fields across multiple standard and custom object records in Salesforce.

Salesforce Object Search Language (SOSL) injection errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.


2. The data is used to dynamically construct a SOSL query without any pre-processing or sanitization.
Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SOSL query that searches for contacts with a specified name.


...
public String inputValue {
get { return inputValue; }
set { inputValue = value; }
}
...
String queryString = 'Name LIKE \'%' + inputValue + '%\'';
String searchString = 'Acme';
String searchQuery = 'FIND :searchString IN ALL FIELDS RETURNING Contact (Id WHERE ' + queryString + ')';
List<List<SObject>> results = Search.query(searchQuery);
...


This code intends to execute the query as follows:


String searchQuery = 'FIND :searchString IN ALL FIELDS RETURNING Contact (Id WHERE Name LIKE '%' + inputValue + '%')';


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if inputValue does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker enters the string 1%' OR Name LIKE ' for inputValue, then the query becomes the following:


String searchQuery = 'FIND :searchString IN ALL FIELDS RETURNING Contact (Id WHERE Name LIKE '%1%' OR Name LIKE '%%')';


The addition of the OR Name like '%%' condition causes the where clause to use the LIKE '%%' condition, which will force the query to output all the records that contain phrase 'map', since it becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:


FIND 'map*' IN ALL FIELDS RETURNING Contact (Id WHERE Name LIKE '%%')


Unlike most of database interfaces, SOSL in the force.com platform does not support multiple SOSL statements separated by semicolons, which means that it is not possible to concatenate several commands in a single query as is the case with regular SQL injection attacks. Also, note that Apex database does not support comments, so every single quote, parenthesis or other special character must be paired.
References
[1] Salesforce Developers Technical Library Secure Coding SQL Injection
[2] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[3] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[4] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[5] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.apex.sosl_injection
Abstract
Loading user-controlled Bean definition resources may allow attackers to execute arbitrary code on the server, abuse application logic, and/or lead to denial of service.
Explanation
Spring enables developers to load Bean definitions from multiple resources including local files and remote URLs. If an attacker is able to control the contents of the Bean definition resource, they will be able to inject malicious Bean definitions which may execute arbitrary code upon their initialization.

Example: The following example loads a bean definition resource from a user-controlled location:

String beans = getBeanDefinitionFromUser();
GenericApplicationContext ctx = new GenericApplicationContext();
XmlBeanDefinitionReader xmlReader = new XmlBeanDefinitionReader(ctx);
xmlReader.loadBeanDefinitions(new UrlResource(beans));
ctx.refresh();
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 94, CWE ID 95
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - 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 6.5.2
[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, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.spring_beans_injection
Abstract
The application is configured to disable the automatic HTML escaping for Spring tags which may lead to Cross-Site Scripting vulnerabilities.
Explanation
Disabling the automatic escaping for HTML context in Spring tags may lead to the application being vulnerable to Cross-Site Scripting attacks.

Example 1: The following web.xml configuration instructs the application to disable automatic HTML escaping for Spring tags.


<web-app xmlns="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" version="3.0"
xsi:schemaLocation="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/web-app_3_0.xsd" metadata-complete="true">
...
<context-param>
<param-name>defaultHtmlEscape</param-name>
<param-value>false</param-value>
</context-param>
...
</web-app>
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 554
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.config.java.spring_misconfiguration_html_escaping_disabled
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic SQL statement with input from an untrusted source might allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or execute arbitrary SQL commands.
Explanation
SQL injection errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.

2. The data used to dynamically construct a SQL query.
Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SQL query designed to search for invoices belonging to a user. The query restricts the items displayed to those where user is equal to the user name of the currently authenticated user.


...
v_account = request->get_form_field( 'account' ).
v_reference = request->get_form_field( 'ref_key' ).

CONCATENATE `user = '` sy-uname `'` INTO cl_where.
IF v_account IS NOT INITIAL.
CONCATENATE cl_where ` AND account = ` v_account INTO cl_where SEPARATED BY SPACE.
ENDIF.
IF v_reference IS NOT INITIAL.
CONCATENATE cl_where "AND ref_key = `" v_reference "`" INTO cl_where.
ENDIF.

SELECT *
FROM invoice_items
INTO CORRESPONDING FIELDS OF TABLE itab_items
WHERE (cl_where).
...


The query this code intends to execute is the following(provided v_account and v_reference are not blanks):


SELECT *
FROM invoice_items
INTO CORRESPONDING FIELDS OF TABLE itab_items
WHERE user = sy-uname
AND account = <account>
AND ref_key = <reference>.


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, it is a candidate for SQL injection attacks. If an attacker enters the string "abc` OR MANDT NE `+" for v_reference and string '1000' for v_account, then the query becomes the following:


SELECT *
FROM invoice_items
INTO CORRESPONDING FIELDS OF TABLE itab_items
WHERE user = sy-uname
AND account = 1000
AND ref_key = `abc` OR MANDT NE `+`.


The addition of the OR MANDT NE `+` condition causes the WHERE clause to always evaluate to true because the client field can never be equal to literal +, so query becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:


SELECT * FROM invoice_items
INTO CORRESPONDING FIELDS OF TABLE itab_items.


This simplification of the query allows the attacker to bypass the requirement that the query must only return items owned by the authenticated user. The query now returns all entries stored in the invoice_items table, regardless of the specified user.

Example 2: In this example, we will consider the usage of ADBC API in a program that lets employees update their address.


PARAMETERS: p_street TYPE string,
p_city TYPE string.

Data: v_sql TYPE string,
stmt TYPE REF TO CL_SQL_STATEMENT.

v_sql = "UPDATE EMP_TABLE SET ".

"Update employee address. Build the update statement with changed details
IF street NE p_street.
CONCATENATE v_sql "STREET = `" p_street "`".
ENDIF.
IF city NE p_city.
CONCATENATE v_sql "CITY = `" p_city "`".
ENDIF.

l_upd = stmt->execute_update( v_sql ).



If a disgruntled employee inputs a string like "ABC` SALARY = `1000000" for the parameter p_street, the application lets the database be updated with revised salary!

One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be a very effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers may:

- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters

Manually escaping characters in input to SQL queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from SQL injection attacks.

References
[1] SAP OSS notes 1520356, 1487337, 1502272 and related notes.
[2] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[3] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[4] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[5] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[19] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[21] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[69] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[70] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.abap.sql_injection
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic SQL statement with input from an untrusted source might allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or execute arbitrary SQL commands.
Explanation
SQL injection errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.



2. The data is used to dynamically construct a SQL query.

Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SQL query that searches for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where the owner matches the user name of the currently-authenticated user.


...
var params:Object = LoaderInfo(this.root.loaderInfo).parameters;
var username:String = String(params["username"]);
var itemName:String = String(params["itemName"]);
var query:String = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = " + username + " AND itemname = " + itemName;

stmt.sqlConnection = conn;
stmt.text = query;
stmt.execute();
...


The query intends to execute the following code:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if itemName does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name' OR 'a'='a" for itemName, then the query becomes the following:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


The addition of the OR 'a'='a' condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so the query becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:


SELECT * FROM items;


This simplification of the query allows the attacker to bypass the requirement that the query must only return items owned by the authenticated user. The query now returns all entries stored in the items table, regardless of their specified owner.

Example 2: This example examines the effects of a different malicious value passed to the query constructed and executed in Example 1. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name'; DELETE FROM items; --" for itemName, then the query becomes the following two queries:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Many database servers, including Microsoft(R) SQL Server 2000, allow multiple SQL statements separated by semicolons to be executed at once. While this attack string results in an error on Oracle and other database servers that do not allow the batch-execution of statements separated by semicolons, on databases that do allow batch execution, this type of attack allows the attacker to execute arbitrary commands against the database.

Notice the trailing pair of hyphens (--), which specifies to most database servers that the remainder of the statement is to be treated as a comment and not executed [4]. In this case the comment character serves to remove the trailing single-quote left over from the modified query. On a database where comments are not allowed to be used in this way, the general attack could still be made effective using a trick similar to the one shown in Example 1. If an attacker enters the string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", the following three valid statements will be created:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only characters from an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be a very effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers may:

- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters

Manually escaping characters in input to SQL queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from SQL injection attacks.

Another solution commonly proposed for dealing with SQL injection attacks is to use stored procedures. Although stored procedures prevent some types of SQL injection attacks, they fail to protect against many others. Stored procedures typically help prevent SQL injection attacks by limiting the types of statements that can be passed to their parameters. However, there are many ways around the limitations and many interesting statements that can still be passed to stored procedures. Again, stored procedures can prevent some exploits, but they will not make your application secure against SQL injection attacks.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[69] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.actionscript.sql_injection
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic SQL statement with input from an untrusted source might allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or execute arbitrary SQL commands.
Explanation
SQL injection errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.

2. The data is used to dynamically construct a SQL query.
Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SQL query that searches for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where owner matches the user name of the currently-authenticated user.


...
string userName = ctx.getAuthenticatedUserName();
string query = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '"
+ userName + "' AND itemname = '"
+ ItemName.Text + "'";
sda = new SqlDataAdapter(query, conn);
DataTable dt = new DataTable();
sda.Fill(dt);
...


The query intends to execute the following code:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if itemName does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name' OR 'a'='a" for itemName, then the query becomes the following:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


The addition of the OR 'a'='a' condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so the query becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:


SELECT * FROM items;


This simplification of the query allows the attacker to bypass the requirement that the query must only return items owned by the authenticated user. The query now returns all entries stored in the items table, regardless of their specified owner.

Example 2: This example examines the effects of a different malicious value passed to the query constructed and executed in Example 1. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name'); DELETE FROM items; --" for itemName, then the query becomes the following two queries:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Many database servers, including Microsoft(R) SQL Server 2000, allow multiple SQL statements separated by semicolons to be executed at once. While this attack string results in an error on Oracle and other database servers that do not allow the batch-execution of statements separated by semicolons, on databases that do allow batch execution, this type of attack allows the attacker to execute arbitrary commands against the database.

Notice the trailing pair of hyphens (--), which specifies to most database servers that the remainder of the statement is to be treated as a comment and not executed [4]. In this case the comment character serves to remove the trailing single-quote left over from the modified query. On a database where comments are not allowed to be used in this way, the general attack could still be made effective using a trick similar to the one shown in Example 1. If an attacker enters the string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", the following three valid statements will be created:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only characters from an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be a very effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers may:

- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters

Manually escaping characters in input to SQL queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from SQL injection attacks.

Another solution commonly proposed for dealing with SQL injection attacks is to use stored procedures. Although stored procedures prevent some types of SQL injection attacks, they fail to protect against many others. Stored procedures typically help prevent SQL injection attacks by limiting the types of statements that can be passed to their parameters. However, there are many ways around the limitations and many interesting statements that can still be passed to stored procedures. Again, stored procedures can prevent some exploits, but they will not make your application secure against SQL injection attacks.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[69] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.dotnet.sql_injection
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic SQL statement with input from an untrusted source might allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or execute arbitrary SQL commands.
Explanation
SQL injection errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.

2. The data is used to dynamically construct a SQL query.
Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SQL query that searches for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where the owner matches the user name of the currently-authenticated user.


...
ctx.getAuthUserName(&userName); {
CString query = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '"
+ userName + "' AND itemname = '"
+ request.Lookup("item") + "'";
dbms.ExecuteSQL(query);
...
Example 2:Alternatively, a similar result could be obtained with SQLite using the following code:


...
sprintf (sql, "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner='%s' AND itemname='%s'", username, request.Lookup("item"));
printf("SQL to execute is: \n\t\t %s\n", sql);
rc = sqlite3_exec(db,sql, NULL,0, &err);
...


The query intends to execute the following code:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if itemName does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name' OR 'a'='a" for itemName, then the query becomes the following:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


The addition of the OR 'a'='a' condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so the query becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:


SELECT * FROM items;


This simplification of the query allows the attacker to bypass the requirement that the query must only return items owned by the authenticated user. The query now returns all entries stored in the items table, regardless of their specified owner.

Example 3: This example examines the effects of a different malicious value passed to the query constructed and executed in Example 1. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name'); DELETE FROM items; --" for itemName, then the query becomes the following two queries:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Many database servers, including Microsoft(R) SQL Server 2000, allow multiple SQL statements separated by semicolons to be executed at once. While this attack string results in an error on Oracle and other database servers that do not allow the batch-execution of statements separated by semicolons, on databases that do allow batch execution, this type of attack allows the attacker to execute arbitrary commands against the database.

Notice the trailing pair of hyphens (--), which specifies to most database servers that the remainder of the statement is to be treated as a comment and not executed [4]. In this case the comment character serves to the trailing single-quote left over from the modified query. On a database where comments are not allowed to be used in this way, the general attack could still be made effective using a trick similar to the one shown in Example 1. If an attacker enters the string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", the following three valid statements will be created:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only characters from an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be a very effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers may:

- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters

Manually escaping characters in input to SQL queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from SQL injection attacks.

Another solution commonly proposed for dealing with SQL injection attacks is to use stored procedures. Although stored procedures prevent some types of SQL injection attacks, they fail to protect against many others. Stored procedures typically help prevent SQL injection attacks by limiting the types of statements that can be passed to their parameters. However, there are many ways around the limitations and many interesting statements that can still be passed to stored procedures. Again, stored procedures can prevent some exploits, but they will not make your application secure against SQL injection attacks.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Parameterized CRecordset and CDatabase for SQL Server
[6] Parameterizing a Recordset Microsoft
[7] ODBC API Reference: SQLNumParams() Microsoft
[8] ODBC API Reference: SQLBindParameter() Microsoft
[9] OLE DB Reference: ICommandWithParameters Microsoft
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[16] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[17] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[18] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[19] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[20] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[21] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[22] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[23] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[24] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[25] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[31] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[32] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[33] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[34] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[35] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[43] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[44] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[45] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[46] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[47] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[48] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[49] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[50] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[69] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[70] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[71] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[72] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[73] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[74] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.cpp.sql_injection
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic SQL statement with input from an untrusted source might allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or execute arbitrary SQL commands.
Explanation
SQL injection errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.

2. The data used to dynamically construct a SQL query.
Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SQL query designed to search for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where owner is equal to the user name of the currently authenticated user.


...
ACCEPT USER.
ACCEPT ITM.
MOVE "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '" TO QUERY1.
MOVE "' AND itemname = '" TO QUERY2.
MOVE "'" TO QUERY3.

STRING
QUERY1, USER, QUERY2, ITM, QUERY3 DELIMITED BY SIZE
INTO QUERY
END-STRING.

EXEC SQL
EXECUTE IMMEDIATE :QUERY
END-EXEC.
...


The query this code intends to execute is the following:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if itemName does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name' OR 'a'='a" for itm, then the query becomes the following:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


The addition of the OR 'a'='a' condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so query becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:


SELECT * FROM items;


This simplification of the query allows the attacker to bypass the requirement that the query must only return items owned by the authenticated user. The query now returns all entries stored in the items table, regardless of their specified owner.

Example 2: In this example, we will consider the effects of a different malicious value passed to the query constructed and executed in Example 1. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name'; DELETE FROM items; --" for itemName, then the query becomes the following two queries:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Many database servers, including Microsoft(R) SQL Server 2000, allow multiple SQL statements separated by semicolons to be executed at once. While this attack string would result in an error on Oracle and other database servers that do not allow the batch-execution of statements separated by semicolons, on supported databases this type of attack will allow the execution of arbitrary commands against the database.

Notice the trailing pair of hyphens (--); these indicate to most database servers that the remainder of the statement is to be treated as a comment and not executed [4]. In this case the comments are used to remove the trailing single-quote leftover from the modified query. On a database where comments are not allowed to be used in this way, the general attack could still be made effective using a trick similar to the one shown in Example 1. If an attacker enters the string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", the following three valid statements will be created:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be a very effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers may:

- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters

Manually escaping characters in input to SQL queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from SQL injection attacks.

Another solution commonly proposed for dealing with SQL injection attacks is to use stored procedures. Although stored procedures prevent some types of SQL injection attacks, they fail to protect against many others. Stored procedures typically help prevent SQL injection attacks by limiting the types of statements that can be passed to their parameters. However, there are many ways around the limitations and many interesting statements that can still be passed to stored procedures. Again, stored procedures can prevent some exploits, but they will not make your application secure against SQL injection attacks.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[69] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.cobol.sql_injection
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic SQL statement with input from an untrusted source might allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or execute arbitrary SQL commands.
Explanation
SQL injection errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.

2. The data used to dynamically construct a SQL query.
Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SQL query that searches for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where owner matches the user name of the currently-authenticated user.


...
<cfquery name="matchingItems" datasource="cfsnippets">
SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner='#Form.userName#'
AND itemId=#Form.ID#
</cfquery>
...


The query intends to execute the following code:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemId = <ID>;


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if Form.ID does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name' OR 'a'='a" for Form.ID, then the query becomes the following:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemId = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


The addition of the OR 'a'='a' condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so the query becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:


SELECT * FROM items;


This simplification of the query allows the attacker to bypass the requirement that the query must only return items owned by the authenticated user. The query now returns all entries stored in the items table, regardless of their specified owner.

Example 2: This example examines the effects of a different malicious value passed to the query constructed and executed in Example 1. If an attacker with the user name hacker enters the string "hacker'); DELETE FROM items; --" for Form.ID, then the query becomes the following two queries:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'hacker'
AND itemId = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Many database servers, including Microsoft(R) SQL Server 2000, allow multiple SQL statements separated by semicolons to be executed at once. While this attack string results in an error on Oracle and other database servers that do not allow the batch-execution of statements separated by semicolons, on databases that do allow batch execution, this type of attack allows the attacker to execute arbitrary commands against the database.

Notice the trailing pair of hyphens (--), which specifies to most database servers that the remainder of the statement is to be treated as a comment and not executed [4]. In this case the comment character serves to remove the trailing single-quote left over from the modified query. On a database where comments are not allowed to be used in this way, the general attack could still be made effective using a trick similar to the one shown in Example 1. If an attacker enters the string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", the following three valid statements will be created:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'hacker'
AND itemId = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only characters from an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be a very effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers may:

- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters

Manually escaping characters in input to SQL queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from SQL injection attacks.

Another solution commonly proposed for dealing with SQL injection attacks is to use stored procedures. Although stored procedures prevent some types of SQL injection attacks, they fail to protect against many others. Stored procedures typically help prevent SQL injection attacks by limiting the types of statements that can be passed to their parameters. However, there are many ways around the limitations and many interesting statements that can still be passed to stored procedures. Again, stored procedures can prevent some exploits, but they will not make your application secure against SQL injection attacks.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[69] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.cfml.sql_injection
Abstract
Using the Java J2EE PersistenceAPI to execute a dynamic SQL statement built with input coming from an untrusted source can enable an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or to execute arbitrary SQL commands.
Explanation
SQL injection errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.



2. The data is used to dynamically construct a SQL query.

Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SQL query that searches for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where the owner matches the user name of the currently-authenticated user.


...
final server = await HttpServer.bind('localhost', 18081);
server.listen((request) async {
final headers = request.headers;
final userName = headers.value('userName');
final itemName = headers.value('itemName');
final query = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '"
+ userName! + "' AND itemname = '"
+ itemName! + "'";
db.query(query);
}
...


The query intends to execute the following code:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if itemName does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name' OR 'a'='a" for itemName, then the query becomes the following:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


The addition of the OR 'a'='a' condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so the query becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:


SELECT * FROM items;


This simplification of the query enables the attacker to bypass the requirement that the query must only return items owned by the authenticated user. The query now returns all entries stored in the items table, regardless of their specified owner.

Example 2: This example examines the effects of a different malicious value passed to the query constructed and executed in Example 1. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name'; DELETE FROM items; --" for itemName, then the query becomes the following two queries:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Many database servers, including Microsoft(R) SQL Server 2000, allow multiple SQL statements separated by semicolons to be executed at once. While this attack string results in an error on Oracle and other database servers that do not allow the batch-execution of statements separated by semicolons, on databases that do allow batch execution, this type of attack enables the attacker to execute arbitrary commands against the database.

Notice the trailing pair of hyphens (--), which specifies to most database servers that the remainder of the statement is to be treated as a comment and not executed [4]. In this case, the comment character serves to remove the trailing single-quote left over from the modified query. On a database where comments are not allowed to be used in this way, the general attack could still be made effective using a trick similar to the one shown in Example 1. If an attacker enters the string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", the following three valid statements will be created:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only characters from an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be an effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers might:

- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters

Manually escaping characters in input to SQL queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from SQL injection attacks.

Another solution commonly proposed to deal with SQL injection attacks is to use stored procedures. Although stored procedures prevent some types of SQL injection attacks, they fail to protect against many others. Stored procedures typically help prevent SQL injection attacks by limiting the types of statements that can be passed to their parameters. However, there are many ways around the limitations and many interesting statements that can still be passed to stored procedures. Again, stored procedures can prevent some types of exploits, but they will not make your application secure against SQL injection attacks.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.dart.sql_injection
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic SQL statement with input that comes from an untrusted source enables an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or to execute arbitrary SQL commands.
Explanation
SQL injection errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.

2. The data is used to dynamically construct a SQL query.
Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SQL query that searches for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where the owner matches the user name of the currently-authenticated user.


...
rawQuery := request.URL.Query()
username := rawQuery.Get("userName")
itemName := rawQuery.Get("itemName")
query := "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = " + username + " AND itemname = " + itemName + ";"

db.Exec(query)
...


The query intends to execute the following code:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


However, because the code dynamically constructs the query by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if itemName does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name' OR 'a'='a" for itemName, then the query becomes the following:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


The addition of the OR 'a'='a' condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so the query becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:


SELECT * FROM items;


This simplification of the query enables the attacker to bypass the requirement that the query must only return items owned by the authenticated user. The query now returns all entries stored in the items table, regardless of their specified owner.

Example 2: This example examines the effects of a different malicious value passed to the query constructed and executed in Example 1. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name'; DELETE FROM items; --" for itemName, then the query becomes the following two queries:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Many database servers, including Microsoft(R) SQL Server 2000, allow the simultaneous execution of multiple SQL statements separated by semicolons. While this attack string results in an error on Oracle and other database servers that do not allow the batch-execution of statements separated by semicolons, on databases that do allow batch execution, this type of attack enables the attacker to execute arbitrary commands against the database.

Notice the trailing pair of hyphens (--), which specifies to most database servers to treat the remainder of the statement as a comment and to not execute it. [4]. In this case, the comment character serves to remove the trailing single-quote left over from the modified query. On a database where comments are not allowed to be used in this way, the general attack could still be made effective using a trick similar to the one shown in Example 1. If an attacker enters the string "name'; DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", the following three valid statements are created:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


One traditional approach to prevent SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only characters from an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be a very effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective to prevent SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers can:

- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters

Manually escaping characters in input to SQL queries can help, but it does not make your application secure from SQL injection attacks.

Another solution commonly proposed to deal with SQL injection attacks is to use stored procedures. Although stored procedures prevent some types of SQL injection attacks, they fail to protect against many others. Stored procedures typically help prevent SQL injection attacks by limiting the types of statements that can be passed to their parameters. However, there are many ways around the limitations and many interesting statements that can still be passed to stored procedures. Again, stored procedures can prevent some exploits, but they do not make your application secure against SQL injection attacks.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[69] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.golang.sql_injection
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic SQL statement with input from an untrusted source might allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or execute arbitrary SQL commands.
Explanation
SQL injection errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.



2. The data is used to dynamically construct a SQL query.

Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SQL query that searches for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where the owner matches the user name of the currently-authenticated user.


...
String userName = ctx.getAuthenticatedUserName();
String itemName = request.getParameter("itemName");
String query = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '"
+ userName + "' AND itemname = '"
+ itemName + "'";
ResultSet rs = stmt.execute(query);
...


The query intends to execute the following code:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if itemName does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name' OR 'a'='a" for itemName, then the query becomes the following:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


The addition of the OR 'a'='a' condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so the query becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:


SELECT * FROM items;


This simplification of the query allows the attacker to bypass the requirement that the query must only return items owned by the authenticated user. The query now returns all entries stored in the items table, regardless of their specified owner.

Example 2: This example examines the effects of a different malicious value passed to the query constructed and executed in Example 1. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name'; DELETE FROM items; --" for itemName, then the query becomes the following two queries:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Many database servers, including Microsoft(R) SQL Server 2000, allow multiple SQL statements separated by semicolons to be executed at once. While this attack string results in an error on Oracle and other database servers that do not allow the batch-execution of statements separated by semicolons, on databases that do allow batch execution, this type of attack allows the attacker to execute arbitrary commands against the database.

Notice the trailing pair of hyphens (--), which specifies to most database servers that the remainder of the statement is to be treated as a comment and not executed [4]. In this case the comment character serves to remove the trailing single-quote left over from the modified query. On a database where comments are not allowed to be used in this way, the general attack could still be made effective using a trick similar to the one shown in Example 1. If an attacker enters the string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", the following three valid statements will be created:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


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

Example 3: The following code adapts Example 1 to the Android platform.


...
PasswordAuthentication pa = authenticator.getPasswordAuthentication();
String userName = pa.getUserName();
String itemName = this.getIntent().getExtras().getString("itemName");
String query = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '"
+ userName + "' AND itemname = '"
+ itemName + "'";
SQLiteDatabase db = this.openOrCreateDatabase("DB", MODE_PRIVATE, null);
Cursor c = db.rawQuery(query, null);
...


One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only characters from an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be a very effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers may:

- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters

Manually escaping characters in input to SQL queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from SQL injection attacks.

Another solution commonly proposed for dealing with SQL injection attacks is to use stored procedures. Although stored procedures prevent some types of SQL injection attacks, they fail to protect against many others. Stored procedures typically help prevent SQL injection attacks by limiting the types of statements that can be passed to their parameters. However, there are many ways around the limitations and many interesting statements that can still be passed to stored procedures. Again, stored procedures can prevent some exploits, but they will not make your application secure against SQL injection attacks.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] IDS00-J. Prevent SQL Injection CERT
[6] INJECT-2: Avoid dynamic SQL Oracle
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[19] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[20] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[21] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[22] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[32] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[43] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[44] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[47] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[69] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[70] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[71] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.java.sql_injection
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic SQL statement with input from an untrusted source might allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or execute arbitrary SQL commands.
Explanation
SQL injection errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.



2. The data is used to dynamically construct a SQL query.

Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SQL query that searches for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where the owner matches the user name of the currently-authenticated user.


...
var username = document.form.username.value;
var itemName = document.form.itemName.value;
var query = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = " + username + " AND itemname = " + itemName + ";";
db.transaction(function (tx) {
tx.executeSql(query);
}
)
...


The query intends to execute the following code:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if itemName does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name' OR 'a'='a" for itemName, then the query becomes the following:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


The addition of the OR 'a'='a' condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so the query becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:


SELECT * FROM items;


This simplification of the query allows the attacker to bypass the requirement that the query must only return items owned by the authenticated user. The query now returns all entries stored in the items table, regardless of their specified owner.

Example 2: This example examines the effects of a different malicious value passed to the query constructed and executed in Example 1. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name'; DELETE FROM items; --" for itemName, then the query becomes the following two queries:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Many database servers, including Microsoft(R) SQL Server 2000, allow multiple SQL statements separated by semicolons to be executed at once. While this attack string results in an error on Oracle and other database servers that do not allow the batch-execution of statements separated by semicolons, on databases that do allow batch execution, this type of attack allows the attacker to execute arbitrary commands against the database.

Notice the trailing pair of hyphens (--), which specifies to most database servers that the remainder of the statement is to be treated as a comment and not executed [4]. In this case the comment character serves to remove the trailing single-quote left over from the modified query. On a database where comments are not allowed to be used in this way, the general attack could still be made effective using a trick similar to the one shown in Example 1. If an attacker enters the string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", the following three valid statements will be created:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only characters from an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be a very effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers may:

- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters

Manually escaping characters in input to SQL queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from SQL injection attacks.

Another solution commonly proposed for dealing with SQL injection attacks is to use stored procedures. Although stored procedures prevent some types of SQL injection attacks, they fail to protect against many others. Stored procedures typically help prevent SQL injection attacks by limiting the types of statements that can be passed to their parameters. However, there are many ways around the limitations and many interesting statements that can still be passed to stored procedures. Again, stored procedures can prevent some exploits, but they will not make your application secure against SQL injection attacks.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[69] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.javascript.sql_injection
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic SQL statement with input from an untrusted source might allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or execute arbitrary SQL commands.
Explanation
SQL injection errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.



2. The data is used to dynamically construct a SQL query.

Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SQL query that searches for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where the owner matches the user name of the currently-authenticated user.


...
$userName = $_SESSION['userName'];
$itemName = $_POST['itemName'];
$query = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '$userName' AND itemname = '$itemName';";
$result = mysql_query($query);
...


The query intends to execute the following code:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if itemName does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name' OR 'a'='a" for itemName, then the query becomes the following:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


The addition of the OR 'a'='a' condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so the query becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:


SELECT * FROM items;


This simplification of the query allows the attacker to bypass the requirement that the query must only return items owned by the authenticated user. The query now returns all entries stored in the items table, regardless of their specified owner.

Example 2: This example examines the effects of a different malicious value passed to the query constructed and executed in Example 1. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name'; DELETE FROM items; --" for itemName, then the query becomes the following two queries:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Many database servers, including Microsoft(R) SQL Server 2000, allow multiple SQL statements separated by semicolons to be executed at once. While this attack string results in an error on Oracle and other database servers that do not allow the batch-execution of statements separated by semicolons, on databases that do allow batch execution, this type of attack allows the attacker to execute arbitrary commands against the database.

Notice the trailing pair of hyphens (--), which specifies to most database servers that the remainder of the statement is to be treated as a comment and not executed [4]. In this case the comment character serves to remove the trailing single-quote left over from the modified query. On a database where comments are not allowed to be used in this way, the general attack could still be made effective using a trick similar to the one shown in Example 1. If an attacker enters the string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", the following three valid statements will be created:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only characters from an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be a very effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers may:

- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters

Manually escaping characters in input to SQL queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from SQL injection attacks.

Another solution commonly proposed for dealing with SQL injection attacks is to use stored procedures. Although stored procedures prevent some types of SQL injection attacks, they fail to protect against many others. Stored procedures typically help prevent SQL injection attacks by limiting the types of statements that can be passed to their parameters. However, there are many ways around the limitations and many interesting statements that can still be passed to stored procedures. Again, stored procedures can prevent some exploits, but they will not make your application secure against SQL injection attacks.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[69] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.php.sql_injection
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic SQL statement with input from an untrusted source might allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or execute arbitrary SQL commands.
Explanation
SQL injection errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.

2. The data used to dynamically construct a SQL query.
Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SQL query designed to search for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where owner is equal to the user name of the currently authenticated user.


procedure get_item (
itm_cv IN OUT ItmCurTyp,
usr in varchar2,
itm in varchar2)
is
open itm_cv for ' SELECT * FROM items WHERE ' ||
'owner = '''|| usr || '''' ||
' AND itemname = ''' || itm || '''';
end get_item;


The query this code intends to execute is the following:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if itemName does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name' OR 'a'='a" for itm, then the query becomes the following:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


The addition of the OR 'a'='a' condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so query becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:


SELECT * FROM items;


This simplification of the query allows the attacker to bypass the requirement that the query must only return items owned by the authenticated user. The query now returns all entries stored in the items table, regardless of their specified owner.

Example 2: In this example, we will consider the effects of a different malicious value passed to the query constructed and executed in Example 1. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name'; DELETE FROM items; --" for itemName, then the query becomes the following two queries:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Many database servers, including Microsoft(R) SQL Server 2000, allow multiple SQL statements separated by semicolons to be executed at once. While this attack string would result in an error on Oracle and other database servers that do not allow the batch-execution of statements separated by semicolons, on supported databases this type of attack will allow the execution of arbitrary commands against the database.

Notice the trailing pair of hyphens (--); these indicate to most database servers that the remainder of the statement is to be treated as a comment and not executed [4]. In this case the comments are used to remove the trailing single-quote leftover from the modified query. On a database where comments are not allowed to be used in this way, the general attack could still be made effective using a trick similar to the one shown in Example 1. If an attacker enters the string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", the following three valid statements will be created:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be a very effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers may:

- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters

Manually escaping characters in input to SQL queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from SQL injection attacks.

Another solution commonly proposed for dealing with SQL injection attacks is to use stored procedures. As this series of examples has shown, stored procedures can be just as vulnerable as other kinds of code. Stored procedures can help prevent certain types of exploits, but they will not make your application inherently secure from SQL injection attacks.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] David Litchfield Lateral SQL Injection: A New Class of Vulnerability in Oracle
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[19] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[21] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[69] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[70] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.sql.sql_injection
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic SQL statement with input from an untrusted source might allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or execute arbitrary SQL commands.
Explanation
SQL injection errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.



2. The data is used to dynamically construct a SQL query.

Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SQL query that searches for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where the owner matches the user name of the currently-authenticated user.


...
userName = req.field('userName')
itemName = req.field('itemName')
query = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = ' " + userName +" ' AND itemname = ' " + itemName +"';"
cursor.execute(query)
result = cursor.fetchall()
...


The query intends to execute the following code:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if itemName does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name' OR 'a'='a" for itemName, then the query becomes the following:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


The addition of the OR 'a'='a' condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so the query becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:


SELECT * FROM items;


This simplification of the query allows the attacker to bypass the requirement that the query must only return items owned by the authenticated user. The query now returns all entries stored in the items table, regardless of their specified owner.

Example 2: This example examines the effects of a different malicious value passed to the query constructed and executed in Example 1. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name'; DELETE FROM items; --" for itemName, then the query becomes the following two queries:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Many database servers, including Microsoft(R) SQL Server 2000, allow multiple SQL statements separated by semicolons to be executed at once. While this attack string results in an error on Oracle and other database servers that do not allow the batch-execution of statements separated by semicolons, on databases that do allow batch execution, this type of attack allows the attacker to execute arbitrary commands against the database.

Notice the trailing pair of hyphens (--), which specifies to most database servers that the remainder of the statement is to be treated as a comment and not executed [4]. In this case the comment character serves to remove the trailing single-quote left over from the modified query. On a database where comments are not allowed to be used in this way, the general attack could still be made effective using a trick similar to the one shown in Example 1. If an attacker enters the string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", the following three valid statements will be created:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only characters from an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be a very effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers may:

- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters

Manually escaping characters in input to SQL queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from SQL injection attacks.

Another solution commonly proposed for dealing with SQL injection attacks is to use stored procedures. Although stored procedures prevent some types of SQL injection attacks, they fail to protect against many others. Stored procedures typically help prevent SQL injection attacks by limiting the types of statements that can be passed to their parameters. However, there are many ways around the limitations and many interesting statements that can still be passed to stored procedures. Again, stored procedures can prevent some exploits, but they will not make your application secure against SQL injection attacks.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[69] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.python.sql_injection
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic SQL statement with input from an untrusted source might allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or execute arbitrary SQL commands.
Explanation
SQL injection errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.

In this case, Fortify Static Code Analyzer could not determine that the source of the data is trusted.

2. The data is used to dynamically construct a SQL query.

Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SQL query that searches for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where the owner matches the user name of the currently-authenticated user.


...
userName = getAuthenticatedUserName()
itemName = params[:itemName]
sqlQuery = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '#{userName}' AND itemname = '#{itemName}'"
rs = conn.query(sqlQuery)
...


The query intends to execute the following code:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if itemName does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name' OR 'a'='a" for itemName, then the query becomes the following:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


The addition of the OR 'a'='a' condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so the query becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:


SELECT * FROM items;


This simplification of the query allows the attacker to bypass the requirement that the query must only return items owned by the authenticated user. The query now returns all entries stored in the items table, regardless of their specified owner.

Due to the fact that Ruby is not statically typed also enables other points of injection into SQL queries that may not be available in statically typed languages.
Example 2: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SQL query that searches for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where the owner matches the user name of the currently-authenticated user.


...
id = params[:id]
itemName = Mysql.escape_string(params[:itemName])
sqlQuery = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE id = #{userName} AND itemname = '#{itemName}'"
rs = conn.query(sqlQuery)
...


In this case, the expected SQL query to be run is:


SELECT * FROM items WHERE id=<id> AND itemname = <itemName>;

You can see this time that we've protected against an attacker specifying a single quote inside itemName and seemingly prevented the SQL injection vulnerability. However as Ruby is not a statically typed language, even though we are expecting id to be an integer of some variety, as this is assigned from user input it won't necessarily be a number. If an attacker can instead change the value of id to 1 OR id!=1--, since there is no check that id is in fact numeric, the SQL query now becomes:


SELECT * FROM items WHERE id=1 OR id!=1-- AND itemname = 'anyValue';


Notice the trailing pair of hyphens (--), which specifies to most database servers that the remainder of the statement is to be treated as a comment and not executed [4]. Due to this, it's now just running a SQL query consisting of:


SELECT * FROM items WHERE id=1 OR id!=1;


We are now just selecting everything from that table whether the value of id is equal to 1 or not, which of course equates to everything within the table.

Many database servers allow multiple SQL statements separated by semicolons to be executed at once. While this attack string results in an error on Oracle and other database servers that do not allow the batch-execution of statements separated by semicolons, on databases that do allow batch execution, this type of attack allows the attacker to execute arbitrary commands against the database.

One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only characters from an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be a very effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers may:

- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters

Manually escaping characters in input to SQL queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from SQL injection attacks.

Another solution commonly proposed for dealing with SQL injection attacks is to use stored procedures. Although stored procedures prevent some types of SQL injection attacks, they fail to protect against many others. Stored procedures typically help prevent SQL injection attacks by limiting the types of statements that can be passed to their parameters. However, there are many ways around the limitations and many interesting statements that can still be passed to stored procedures. Again, stored procedures can prevent some exploits, but they will not make your application secure against SQL injection attacks.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[69] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.ruby.sql_injection
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic SQL statement with input from an untrusted source might allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or execute arbitrary SQL commands.
Explanation
SQL injection errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.



2. The data is used to dynamically construct a SQL query.

Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SQL query that searches for users matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where the owner matches the user name provided as a path parameter.


def doSQLQuery(value:String) = Action.async { implicit request =>
val result: Future[Seq[User]] = db.run {
sql"select * from users where name = '#$value'".as[User]
}
...
}


The query intends to execute the following code:


SELECT * FROM users
WHERE name = <userName>


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if userName does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name' OR 'a'='a" for userName, then the query becomes the following:


SELECT * FROM users
WHERE name = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


The addition of the OR 'a'='a' condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so the query becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:


SELECT * FROM users;


This simplification of the query allows the attacker to bypass the requirement that the query must only return users owned by the specified user; the query now returns all entries stored in the users table, regardless of their specified user.

One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only characters from an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be a very effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers may:

- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters

Manually escaping characters in input to SQL queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from SQL injection attacks.

Another solution commonly proposed for dealing with SQL injection attacks is to use stored procedures. Although stored procedures prevent some types of SQL injection attacks, they fail to protect against many others. Stored procedures typically help prevent SQL injection attacks by limiting the types of statements that can be passed to their parameters. However, there are many ways around the limitations and many interesting statements that can still be passed to stored procedures. Again, stored procedures can prevent some exploits, but they will not make your application secure against SQL injection attacks.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] IDS00-J. Prevent SQL Injection CERT
[6] INJECT-2: Avoid dynamic SQL Oracle
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[19] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[20] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[21] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[22] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[32] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[43] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[44] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[47] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[69] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[70] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[71] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.scala.sql_injection
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic SQL statement with input from an untrusted source might allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or execute arbitrary SQL commands.
Explanation
SQL injection errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.

2. The data is used to dynamically construct a SQL query.
Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SQL query that searches for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where the owner matches the user name of the currently-authenticated user.


...
let queryStatementString = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner='\(username)' AND itemname='\(item)'"
var queryStatement: OpaquePointer? = nil
if sqlite3_prepare_v2(db, queryStatementString, -1, &queryStatement, nil) == SQLITE_OK {
if sqlite3_step(queryStatement) == SQLITE_ROW {
...
}
}
...


The query intends to execute the following code:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = '<userName>'
AND itemname = '<itemName>'


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if itemName does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name' OR 'a'='a" for itemName, then the query becomes the following:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


The addition of the OR 'a'='a' condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so the query becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:


SELECT * FROM items;


This simplification of the query allows the attacker to bypass the requirement that the query must only return items owned by the authenticated user. The query now returns all entries stored in the items table, regardless of their specified owner.

Example 3: This example examines the effects of a different malicious value passed to the query constructed and executed in Example 1. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name'); DELETE FROM items; --" for itemName, then the query becomes the following two queries:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Many database servers, including Microsoft(R) SQL Server 2000, allow multiple SQL statements separated by semicolons to be executed at once. While this attack string results in an error on Oracle and other database servers that do not allow the batch-execution of statements separated by semicolons, on databases that do allow batch execution, this type of attack allows the attacker to execute arbitrary commands against the database.

Notice the trailing pair of hyphens (--), which specifies to most database servers that the remainder of the statement is to be treated as a comment and not executed [4]. In this case the comment character serves to the trailing single-quote left over from the modified query. On a database where comments are not allowed to be used in this way, the general attack could still be made effective using a trick similar to the one shown in Example 1. If an attacker enters the string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", the following three valid statements will be created:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only characters from an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be a very effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers may:

- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters

Manually escaping characters in input to SQL queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from SQL injection attacks.

Another solution commonly proposed for dealing with SQL injection attacks is to use stored procedures. Although stored procedures prevent some types of SQL injection attacks, they fail to protect against many others. Stored procedures typically help prevent SQL injection attacks by limiting the types of statements that can be passed to their parameters. However, there are many ways around the limitations and many interesting statements that can still be passed to stored procedures. Again, stored procedures can prevent some exploits, but they will not make your application secure against SQL injection attacks.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Parameterized CRecordset and CDatabase for SQL Server
[6] Parameterizing a Recordset Microsoft
[7] ODBC API Reference: SQLNumParams() Microsoft
[8] ODBC API Reference: SQLBindParameter() Microsoft
[9] OLE DB Reference: ICommandWithParameters Microsoft
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[16] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[17] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[18] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[19] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[20] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[21] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[22] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[23] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[24] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[25] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[31] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[32] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[33] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[34] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[35] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[43] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[44] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[45] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[46] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[47] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[48] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[49] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[50] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[69] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[70] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[71] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[72] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[73] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[74] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.swift.sql_injection
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic SQL statement with input from an untrusted source might allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or execute arbitrary SQL commands.
Explanation
SQL injection errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.



2. The data is used to dynamically construct a SQL query.

Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SQL query that searches for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where the owner matches the user name of the currently-authenticated user.


...
username = Session("username")
itemName = Request.Form("itemName")
strSQL = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '"& userName &"' AND itemname = '" & itemName &"'"
objRecordSet.Open strSQL, strConnect, adOpenDynamic, adLockOptimistic, adCmdText
...


The query intends to execute the following code:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if itemName does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name' OR 'a'='a" for itemName, then the query becomes the following:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


The addition of the OR 'a'='a' condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so the query becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:


SELECT * FROM items;


This simplification of the query allows the attacker to bypass the requirement that the query must only return items owned by the authenticated user. The query now returns all entries stored in the items table, regardless of their specified owner.

Example 2: This example examines the effects of a different malicious value passed to the query constructed and executed in Example 1. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name'; DELETE FROM items; --" for itemName, then the query becomes the following two queries:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Many database servers, including Microsoft(R) SQL Server 2000, allow multiple SQL statements separated by semicolons to be executed at once. While this attack string results in an error on Oracle and other database servers that do not allow the batch-execution of statements separated by semicolons, on databases that do allow batch execution, this type of attack allows the attacker to execute arbitrary commands against the database.

Notice the trailing pair of hyphens (--), which specifies to most database servers that the remainder of the statement is to be treated as a comment and not executed [4]. In this case the comment character serves to remove the trailing single-quote left over from the modified query. On a database where comments are not allowed to be used in this way, the general attack could still be made effective using a trick similar to the one shown in Example 1. If an attacker enters the string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", the following three valid statements will be created:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only characters from an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be a very effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers may:

- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters

Manually escaping characters in input to SQL queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from SQL injection attacks.

Another solution commonly proposed for dealing with SQL injection attacks is to use stored procedures. Although stored procedures prevent some types of SQL injection attacks, they fail to protect against many others. Stored procedures typically help prevent SQL injection attacks by limiting the types of statements that can be passed to their parameters. However, there are many ways around the limitations and many interesting statements that can still be passed to stored procedures. Again, stored procedures can prevent some exploits, but they will not make your application secure against SQL injection attacks.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[69] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.vb.sql_injection
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic Castle ActiveRecord statement with input coming from an untrusted source might allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or to execute arbitrary SQL commands.
Explanation
SQL injection errors related to Castle ActiveRecord occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.

2. The data is used to dynamically construct a query.
Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a Castle ActiveRecord query that searches for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where owner matches the user name of the currently-authenticated user.


...
string userName = ctx.getAuthenticatedUserName();
string queryString = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '"
+ userName + "' AND itemname = '"
+ ItemName.Text + "'";

SimpleQuery<Item> queryObject = new SimpleQuery(queryString);
Item[] items = (Item[])queryObject.Execute(query);

...


The query intends to execute the following code:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if itemName does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name' OR 'a'='a" for itemName, then the query becomes the following:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


The addition of the OR 'a'='a' condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so the query becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:


SELECT * FROM items;


This simplification of the query allows the attacker to bypass the requirement that the query must only return items owned by the authenticated user. The query now returns all entries stored in the items table, regardless of their specified owner.

One traditional approach to preventing Castle ActiveRecord injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only characters from an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be a very effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized Castle ActiveRecord statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing Castle ActiveRecord SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers may:

- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters

Manually escaping characters in input to Castle ActiveRecord queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from Castle ActiveRecord SQL injection attacks.

Another solution commonly proposed for dealing with Castle ActiveRecord injection attacks is to use stored procedures. Although stored procedures prevent some types of Castle ActiveRecord injection attacks, they fail to protect against many others. Stored procedures typically help prevent Castle ActiveRecord SQL injection attacks by limiting the types of statements that can be passed to their parameters. However, there are many ways around the limitations and many interesting statements that can still be passed to stored procedures. Again, stored procedures can prevent some exploits, but they will not make your application secure against Castle ActiveRecord injection attacks.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.dotnet.sql_injection_castleActiveRecord
Abstract
Using Hibernate to execute a dynamic SQL statement built with input coming from an untrusted source can allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or to execute arbitrary SQL commands.
Explanation
SQL injection errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.



2. The data is used to dynamically construct a HQL query.

Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a HQL query that searches for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where owner matches the user name of the currently-authenticated user.


...
String userName = ctx.getAuthenticatedUserName();
String itemName = request.getParameter("itemName");
String query = "FROM items WHERE owner = '"
+ userName + "' AND itemname = '"
+ itemName + "'";
List items = sess.createQuery(query).list();
...


The query intends to execute the following code:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if itemName does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name' OR 'a'='a" for itemName, then the query becomes the following:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


The addition of the OR 'a'='a' condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so the query becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:


SELECT * FROM items;


This simplification of the query allows the attacker to bypass the requirement that the query must only return items owned by the authenticated user. The query now returns all entries stored in the items table, regardless of their specified owner.

Example 2: This example examines the effects of a different malicious value passed to the query constructed and executed in Example 1. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name'; DELETE FROM items; --" for itemName, then the query becomes the following two queries:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Many database servers, including Microsoft(R) SQL Server 2000, allow multiple SQL statements separated by semicolons to be executed at once. While this attack string results in an error on Oracle and other database servers that do not allow the batch-execution of statements separated by semicolons, on databases that do allow batch execution, this type of attack allows the attacker to execute arbitrary commands against the database.

Notice the trailing pair of hyphens (--), which specifies to most database servers that the remainder of the statement is to be treated as a comment and not executed [4]. In this case the comment character serves to remove the trailing single-quote left over from the modified query. On a database where comments are not allowed to be used in this way, the general attack could still be made effective using a trick similar to the one shown in Example 1. If an attacker enters the string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", the following three valid statements will be created:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only characters from an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be an effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers may:

- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters

Manually escaping characters in input to SQL queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from SQL injection attacks.

Another solution commonly proposed for dealing with SQL injection attacks is to use stored procedures. Although stored procedures prevent some types of SQL injection attacks, they fail to protect against many others. Stored procedures typically help prevent SQL injection attacks by limiting the types of statements that can be passed to their parameters. However, there are many ways around the limitations and many interesting statements that can still be passed to stored procedures. Again, stored procedures can prevent some types of exploits, but they will not make your application secure against SQL injection attacks.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Hibernate API Documentation
[6] IDS00-J. Prevent SQL Injection CERT
[7] INJECT-2: Avoid dynamic SQL Oracle
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 564
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.java.sql_injection_hibernate
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic SQL statement with input from an untrusted source might allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or execute arbitrary SQL commands.
Explanation
SQL injection errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.

2. The data is used to dynamically construct a SQL query.



iBatis Data Maps allow you to specify dynamic parameters in SQL statements and are typically defined by using the # characters, as follows:


<select id="getItems" parameterClass="MyClass" resultClass="items">
SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = #userName#
</select>


The # characters around the variable name indicate that iBatis will create a parameterized query with the userName variable. However, iBatis also allows you to concatenate variables directly to SQL statements using $ characters, opening the door for SQL injection.

Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SQL query that searches for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where the owner matches the user name of the currently-authenticated user.


<select id="getItems" parameterClass="MyClass" resultClass="items">
SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = #userName# AND itemname = '$itemName$'
</select>


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if itemName does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name' OR 'a'='a" for itemName, then the query becomes the following:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


The addition of the OR 'a'='a' condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so the query becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:


SELECT * FROM items;


This simplification of the query allows the attacker to bypass the requirement that the query must only return items owned by the authenticated user. The query now returns all entries stored in the items table, regardless of their specified owner.

Example 2: This example examines the effects of a different malicious value passed to the query constructed and executed in Example 1. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name'; DELETE FROM items; --" for itemName, then the query becomes the following two queries:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Many database servers, including Microsoft(R) SQL Server 2000, allow multiple SQL statements separated by semicolons to be executed at once. While this attack string results in an error on Oracle and other database servers that do not allow the batch-execution of statements separated by semicolons, on databases that do allow batch execution, this type of attack allows the attacker to execute arbitrary commands against the database.

Notice the trailing pair of hyphens (--), which specifies to most database servers that the remainder of the statement is to be treated as a comment and not executed [4]. In this case the comment character serves to remove the trailing single-quote left over from the modified query. On a database where comments are not allowed to be used in this way, the general attack could still be made effective using a trick similar to the one shown in Example 1. If an attacker enters the string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", the following three valid statements will be created:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only characters from an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be a very effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers may:

- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters

Manually escaping characters in input to SQL queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from SQL injection attacks.

Another solution commonly proposed for dealing with SQL injection attacks is to use stored procedures. Although stored procedures prevent some types of SQL injection attacks, they fail to protect against many others. Stored procedures typically help prevent SQL injection attacks by limiting the types of statements that can be passed to their parameters. However, there are many ways around the limitations and many interesting statements that can still be passed to stored procedures. Again, stored procedures can prevent some exploits, but they will not make your application secure against SQL injection attacks.
References
[1] iBatis Working with Data Maps
[2] iBatis Data Mapper Developer Guide
[3] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[4] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[5] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[6] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[7] IDS00-J. Prevent SQL Injection CERT
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[66] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.config.java.sql_injection_ibatis_data_map
Abstract
Using Java Data Objects (JDO) to execute a dynamic SQL or JDOQL statement built with input coming from an untrusted source can allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or to execute arbitrary SQL commands.
Explanation
SQL injection errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.



2. The data is used to dynamically construct a SQL or JDOQL query.

Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SQL query that searches for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where owner matches the user name of the currently-authenticated user.


...
String userName = ctx.getAuthenticatedUserName();
String itemName = request.getParameter("itemName");
String sql = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '"
+ userName + "' AND itemname = '"
+ itemName + "'";
Query query = pm.newQuery(Query.SQL, sql);
query.setClass(Person.class);
List people = (List)query.execute();
...


The query intends to execute the following code:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if itemName does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name' OR 'a'='a" for itemName, then the query becomes the following:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


The addition of the OR 'a'='a' condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so the query becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query:


SELECT * FROM items;


This simplification of the query allows the attacker to bypass the requirement that the query must only return items owned by the authenticated user. The query now returns all entries stored in the items table, regardless of their specified owner.

Example 2: This example examines the effects of a different malicious value passed to the query constructed and executed in Example 1. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name'; DELETE FROM items; --" for itemName, then the query becomes the following two queries:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Many database servers, including Microsoft(R) SQL Server 2000, allow multiple SQL statements separated by semicolons to be executed at once. While this attack string results in an error on Oracle and other database servers that do not allow the batch-execution of statements separated by semicolons, on databases that do allow batch execution, this type of attack allows the attacker to execute arbitrary commands against the database.

Notice the trailing pair of hyphens (--), which specifies to most database servers that the remainder of the statement is to be treated as a comment and not executed [4]. In this case the comment character serves to remove the trailing single-quote left over from the modified query. On a database where comments are not allowed to be used in this way, the general attack could still be made effective using a trick similar to the one shown in Example 1. If an attacker enters the string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", the following three valid statements will be created:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only characters from an allow list of safe values or identify and escape a list of potentially malicious values (deny list). Checking an allow list can be an effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, implementing a deny list is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers may:

- Target fields that are not quoted
- Find ways to bypass the need for certain escaped metacharacters
- Use stored procedures to hide the injected metacharacters

Manually escaping characters in input to SQL queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from SQL injection attacks.

Another solution commonly proposed for dealing with SQL injection attacks is to use stored procedures. Although stored procedures prevent some types of SQL injection attacks, they fail to protect against many others. Stored procedures typically help prevent SQL injection attacks by limiting the types of statements that can be passed to their parameters. However, there are many ways around the limitations and many interesting statements that can still be passed to stored procedures. Again, stored procedures can prevent some types of exploits, but they will not make your application secure against SQL injection attacks.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] JDO API Documentation
[6] IDS00-J. Prevent SQL Injection CERT
[7] INJECT-2: Avoid dynamic SQL Oracle
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[66] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.java.sql_injection_jdo