1591 items found
Weaknesses

Flex Misconfiguration: Debug Information

Abstract
Debugging information helps attackers learn about the system and plan a form of attack.
Explanation
If you are using Blaze DS to perform logging of any unexpected events, the services-config.xml descriptor file specifies a "Logging" XML element to describe various aspects of logging. It looks like the following:

Example 1:

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


This target tag takes an optional attribute called level, which indicates the log level. If the debug level is set to too detailed a level, your application may write sensitive data to the log file.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 11
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001312, CCI-001314, CCI-002420, CCI-003272
[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 SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools (P2), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1), SI-11 Error Handling (P2)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity, SI-11 Error Handling
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[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 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.config.java.flex_misconfiguration_debug_information

Format String

Abstract
Allowing an attacker to control a function's format string can result in a buffer overflow.
Explanation
Format string vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters the application from an untrusted source.



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


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


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

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


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


This code produces the following output:


5 9 5 5


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

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

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


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


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

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


	...
	syslog(LOG_ERR, "%s", cmdBuf);
	...
References
[1] T. Newsham Format String Attacks Guardent, Inc.
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 134
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754, CCI-002824
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1), SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation, SI-16 Memory Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.4.2 Memory/String/Unmanaged Code Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[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 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[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 - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 134
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Format String (WASC-06)
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Format String Attack
desc.dataflow.cpp.format_string
Abstract
An attacker may control the format string argument allowing an attack much like a buffer overflow.
Explanation
Format string vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters the application from an untrusted source.



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


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


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

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

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


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


This code produces the following output:


5 9 5 5


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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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


	...
	NSString test = @"Sample Text.";
	test = [test stringByAppendingFormat:@"%@", [MyClass
	formatInput:inputControl.text]];
	...
References
[1] T. Newsham Format String Attacks Guardent, Inc.
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 134
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754, CCI-002824
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1), SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation, SI-16 Memory Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.4.2 Memory/String/Unmanaged Code Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[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 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[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 - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 134
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Format String (WASC-06)
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Format String Attack
desc.dataflow.objc.format_string

Format String: Argument Number Mismatch

Abstract
The program uses an improperly constructed format string that contains a different number of conversion specifiers than the function has arguments. Incorrect format strings can lead the program to read data outside the bounds of allocated memory, which can allow access to sensitive information, introduce incorrect behavior, or crash the program.
Explanation
Buffer overflow is probably the best known form of software security vulnerability. Most software developers know what a buffer overflow vulnerability is, but buffer overflow attacks against both legacy and newly-developed applications are still quite common. Part of the problem is due to the wide variety of ways buffer overflows can occur, and part is due to the error-prone techniques often used to prevent them.

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

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

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

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

Example 1: The following reads arbitrary values from the stack because the number of format specifiers does not align with the number of arguments passed to the function.

void wrongNumberArgs(char *s, float f, int d) {
   char buf[1024];
   sprintf(buf, "Wrong number of %.512s");
}
References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[3] J. Koziol et al. The Shellcoder's Handbook: Discovering and Exploiting Security Holes John Wiley & Sons
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 126
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [1] CWE ID 119, [5] CWE ID 125
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [5] CWE ID 119, [4] CWE ID 125
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [3] CWE ID 125, [17] CWE ID 119
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [5] CWE ID 125, [19] CWE ID 119
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [7] CWE ID 125, [17] CWE ID 119
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [6] CWE ID 125, [12] CWE ID 020, [20] CWE ID 119
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002824
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[14] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.3
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-16 Memory Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-2
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[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 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 119
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Format String (WASC-06)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Format String Attack
desc.internal.cpp.format_string_argument_number_mismatch

Format String: Argument Type Mismatch

Abstract
The program uses an improperly constructed format string that contains conversion specifiers that do not align with the types of the arguments passed to the function. Incorrect format strings can lead the program to convert values incorrectly and potentially read or write outside the bounds of allocated memory, which can introduce incorrect behavior or crash the program.
Explanation
Buffer overflow is probably the best known form of software security vulnerability. Most software developers know what a buffer overflow vulnerability is, but buffer overflow attacks against both legacy and newly-developed applications are still quite common. Part of the problem is due to the wide variety of ways buffer overflows can occur, and part is due to the error-prone techniques often used to prevent them.

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

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

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

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

Example 1: The following code incorrectly converts f from a float using a %d format specifier.


void ArgTypeMismatch(float f, int d, char *s, wchar *ws) {
   char buf[1024];
   sprintf(buf, "Wrong type of %d", f);
   ...
}
References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[3] J. Koziol et al. The Shellcoder's Handbook: Discovering and Exploiting Security Holes John Wiley & Sons
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 125, CWE ID 787
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [1] CWE ID 119, [5] CWE ID 125, [12] CWE ID 787
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [5] CWE ID 119, [4] CWE ID 125, [2] CWE ID 787
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [1] CWE ID 787, [3] CWE ID 125, [17] CWE ID 119
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [1] CWE ID 787, [5] CWE ID 125, [19] CWE ID 119
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [1] CWE ID 787, [7] CWE ID 125, [17] CWE ID 119
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [2] CWE ID 787, [6] CWE ID 125, [12] CWE ID 020, [20] CWE ID 119
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002824
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 10.3
[14] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 10.3
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 5-0-3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 7.0.5, Rule 7.0.6
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-16 Memory Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 119
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Format String (WASC-06)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Format String Attack
desc.internal.cpp.format_string_argument_type_mismatch

Formula Injection

Abstract
Attackers might control data written to a spreadsheet, which could enable them to target users who open the file on certain spreadsheet processors.
Explanation
Popular spreadsheet processors such as Apache OpenOffice Calc and Microsoft Office Excel support powerful formula operations that might enable attackers in control of the spreadsheet to run arbitrary commands on the underlying system or leak sensitive information on the spreadsheet.

As an example, the attacker may inject the following payload as part of a CSV field: =cmd|'/C calc.exe'!Z0. If the user who opens the spreadsheet trusts the origin of the document, they might accept all the security prompts presented by the spreadsheet processor and let the payload (in this example, opening the Windows calculator) run on their system.

Example 1: The following example shows an ASP.NET Controller that generates a CSV response with non-sanitized user-controlled data:


        public void Service()
        {
             string name = HttpContext.Request["name"];

             string data = GenerateCSVFor(name);
             HttpContext.Response.Clear();
             HttpContext.Response.Buffer = true;
             HttpContext.Response.AddHeader("content-disposition", "attachment;filename=file.csv");
             HttpContext.Response.Charset = "";
             HttpContext.Response.ContentType = "application/csv";
             HttpContext.Response.Output.Write(tainted);
             HttpContext.Response.Flush();
             HttpContext.Response.End();
        }
References
[1] Formula Injection Pentest Magazine
[2] Comma Separated Vulnerabilities Context
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 1236
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[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, Requirement 6.5.4
[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 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[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, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] 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
[28] 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
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.formula_injection
Abstract
Attackers might control data written to a spreadsheet, which could enable them to target users who open the file on certain spreadsheet processors.
Explanation
Popular spreadsheet processors such as Apache OpenOffice Calc and Microsoft Office Excel support powerful formula operations that might enable attackers in control of the spreadsheet to run arbitrary commands on the underlying system or leak sensitive information on the spreadsheet.

As an example, the attacker may inject the following payload as part of a CSV field: =cmd|'/C calc.exe'!Z0. If the user who opens the spreadsheet trusts the origin of the document, they might accept all the security prompts presented by the spreadsheet processor and let the payload (in this example, opening the Windows calculator) run on their system.

Example 1: The following example writes to a csv file using non-sanitized user-controlled data:


    func someHandler(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request){
        r.parseForm()
        foo := r.FormValue("foo")
        ...
        w := csv.NewWriter(file)
        w.Write(foo)
    }
References
[1] Formula Injection Pentest Magazine
[2] Comma Separated Vulnerabilities Context
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 1236
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[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, Requirement 6.5.4
[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 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[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, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] 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
[28] 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
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.golang.formula_injection
Abstract
Attackers might control data written to a spreadsheet, which could enable them to target users who open the file on certain spreadsheet processors.
Explanation
Popular spreadsheet processors such as Apache OpenOffice Calc and Microsoft Office Excel support powerful formula operations that might enable attackers in control of the spreadsheet to run arbitrary commands on the underlying system or leak sensitive information on the spreadsheet.

As an example, the attacker may inject the following payload as part of a CSV field: =cmd|'/C calc.exe'!Z0. If the user who opens the spreadsheet trusts the origin of the document, they might accept all the security prompts presented by the spreadsheet processor and let the payload (in this example, opening the Windows calculator) run on their system.

Example 1: The following example shows a Spring Controller that generates a CSV response with non-sanitized user-controlled data:


    @RequestMapping(value = "/api/service.csv")
    public ResponseEntity<String> service(@RequestParam("name") String name) {

        HttpHeaders responseHeaders = new HttpHeaders();
        responseHeaders.add("Content-Type", "application/csv; charset=utf-8");
        responseHeaders.add("Content-Disposition", "attachment;filename=file.csv");

        String data = generateCSVFor(name);

        return new ResponseEntity<>(data, responseHeaders, HttpStatus.OK);
    }
References
[1] Formula Injection Pentest Magazine
[2] Comma Separated Vulnerabilities Context
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 1236
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[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, Requirement 6.5.4
[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 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[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, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] 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
[28] 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
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.formula_injection
Abstract
Attackers might control data written to a spreadsheet, which could enable them to target users who open the file on certain spreadsheet processors.
Explanation
Popular spreadsheet processors such as Apache OpenOffice Calc and Microsoft Office Excel support powerful formula operations that might enable attackers in control of the spreadsheet to run arbitrary commands on the underlying system or leak sensitive information on the spreadsheet.

As an example, the attacker may inject the following payload as part of a CSV field: =cmd|'/C calc.exe'!Z0. If the user who opens the spreadsheet trusts the origin of the document, they might accept all the security prompts presented by the spreadsheet processor and let the payload (in this example, opening the Windows calculator) run on their system.

Example 1: The following example shows a Spring Controller that generates a CSV response with non-sanitized user-controlled data:


    @RequestMapping(value = "/api/service.csv")
    fun service(@RequestParam("name") name: String): ResponseEntity<String> {
        val responseHeaders = HttpHeaders()
        responseHeaders.add("Content-Type", "application/csv; charset=utf-8")
        responseHeaders.add("Content-Disposition", "attachment;filename=file.csv")
        val data: String = generateCSVFor(name)
        return ResponseEntity(data, responseHeaders, HttpStatus.OK)
    }
References
[1] Formula Injection Pentest Magazine
[2] Comma Separated Vulnerabilities Context
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 1236
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[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, Requirement 6.5.4
[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 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[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, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] 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
[28] 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
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.kotlin.formula_injection

Fragment Injection

Abstract
An Android activity extending PreferenceActivity fails to restrict the fragment classes it can instantiate.
Explanation
A malicious application can invoke an insecure PreferenceActivity and supply it with an :android:show_fragment Intent extra in order to make it load an arbitrary class. The malicious app can make the PreferenceActivity load an arbitrary Fragment of the vulnerable app, which is normally loaded inside a non-exported Activity, exposing it to the attacker.

Example 1: The following code fails to implements a check to verify that only expected fragments are loaded.


@Override
public static boolean isFragmentValid(Fragment paramFragment)
{
    return true;
}
References
[1] Roee Hay A New Vulnerability in the Android Framework: Fragment Injection
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 470
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-7 Least Functionality (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-7 Least Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[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, Requirement 6.5.4
[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 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[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, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] 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
[28] 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
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.structural.java.fragment_injection

Frame Spoofing

Abstract
Accepting user-supplied data as apex:iframe source URL may lead to malicious content being loaded within the Visualforce page.
Explanation
Frame Spoofing vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source.

2. The data is used as an iframe URL without being validated.

This way, an attacker may be able to control what is rendered into the inline frame. By modifying the frame URL to point to a malicious site, phishing attacks may be performed in an attempt to steal user information, including credentials or other sensitive data. Given that the base domain is trusted - Salesforce.com, the victim will trust the page and provide all of the requested information.

Example 1: In the following code example, the iframesrc URL parameter is directly used as the apex:iframe target URL.

<apex:page>
<apex:iframe src="{!$CurrentPage.parameters.iframesrc}"></apex:iframe>
</apex:page>


This way, if an attacker provides a victim with the iframesrc parameter set to a malicious website, the frame will be rendered with the content of the malicious website.

<iframe src="http://evildomain.com/">
References
[1] Ryan C. Barnett Content Spoofing - TechTarget
[2] Salesforce Developers Technical Library Secure Coding Guidelines
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[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 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[25] 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
[26] 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
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[28] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.apex.frame_spoofing

GCP Terraform Misconfiguration: Apigee Missing Customer-Managed Encryption Key

Abstract
A Terraform configuration does not specify any customer-managed encryption key for data at rest.
Explanation
Customer-managed encryption keys (CMEK) are not enabled for data at rest.

By default, Google Cloud uses randomly generated Data Encryption Keys (DEK) to encrypt data at rest. The CMEK feature allows organizations to use cryptographic keys of their choice to encrypt DEK. This gives organizations better control over and logging of encryption processes.

As such, CMEK is often part of the solution to address requirements that include but are not limited to:
- Audit logs for sensitive data access
- Data residency
- Replacing, disabling, or destroying keys
- Tamper-resistant hardware security module
References
[1] Google Cloud Customer-managed encryption keys (CMEK)
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001350, CCI-002475
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 3.5.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 3.3.2, Requirement 3.3.3, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
desc.structural.hcl.iac.gcp_bad_practices_missing_customer_managed_encryption_key.base

GCP Terraform Misconfiguration: BigQuery Dataset Publicly Accessible

Abstract
A Terraform configuration grants public access to a BigQuery Dataset.
Explanation
Granting access or BigQuery roles to the special principal type such as allUsers and allAuthenticatedUsers gives anyone access to sensitive data.
References
[1] HashiCorp IAM policy for BigQuery dataset
[2] HashiCorp google_bigquery_dataset_access
[3] Google Cloud Platform Controlling access to datasets
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark Recommendation 7.1
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 284, CWE ID 359
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235, CCI-002420
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1), AC-6 Least Privilege (P1), IA-8 Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users) (P1), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement, AC-6 Least Privilege, IA-8 Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 7.3.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 7.3.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.1.2 - Web Software Access Controls
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II
desc.structural.hcl.gcp_terraform_misconfiguration_bigquery_dataset_publicly_accessible

GCP Terraform Misconfiguration: BigQuery Missing Customer-Managed Encryption Key

Abstract
A Terraform configuration does not specify any customer-managed encryption key for data at rest.
Explanation
Customer-managed encryption keys (CMEK) are not enabled for data at rest.

By default, Google Cloud uses randomly generated Data Encryption Keys (DEK) to encrypt data at rest. The CMEK feature allows organizations to use cryptographic keys of their choice to encrypt DEK. This gives organizations better control over and logging of encryption processes.

As such, CMEK is often part of the solution to address requirements that include but are not limited to:
- Audit logs for sensitive data access
- Data residency
- Replacing, disabling, or destroying keys
- Tamper-resistant hardware security module
References
[1] Google Cloud Customer-managed encryption keys (CMEK)
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark Recommendation 7.2, Recommendation 7.3
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001350, CCI-002475
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 3.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 3.3.2, Requirement 3.3.3, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
desc.structural.hcl.iac.gcp_bad_practices_missing_customer_managed_encryption_key.base

GCP Terraform Misconfiguration: Cloud Bigtable Missing Customer-Managed Encryption Key

Abstract
A Terraform configuration does not specify any customer-managed encryption key for data at rest.
Explanation
Customer-managed encryption keys (CMEK) are not enabled for data at rest.

By default, Google Cloud uses randomly generated Data Encryption Keys (DEK) to encrypt data at rest. The CMEK feature allows organizations to use cryptographic keys of their choice to encrypt DEK. This gives organizations better control over and logging of encryption processes.

As such, CMEK is often part of the solution to address requirements that include but are not limited to:
- Audit logs for sensitive data access
- Data residency
- Replacing, disabling, or destroying keys
- Tamper-resistant hardware security module
References
[1] Google Cloud Customer-managed encryption keys (CMEK)
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001350, CCI-002475
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 3.5.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 3.3.2, Requirement 3.3.3, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
desc.structural.hcl.iac.gcp_bad_practices_missing_customer_managed_encryption_key.base

GCP Terraform Misconfiguration: Cloud DNS DNSSEC Disabled

Abstract
A Terraform configuration does not enable the Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) of a Cloud DNS Domain.
Explanation
DNSSEC prevents DNS spoofing by providing the ability to use digital signatures for DNS response validation. The DNSSEC of a Cloud DNS Domain is not enabled.

Example 1: The following example shows a Terraform configuration that disables DNSSEC on a Cloud DNS Domain by setting state to off in the dnssec_config block.

resource "google_dns_managed_zone" "zone-demo" {
...
  dnssec_config {
    state = "off"
    ...
  }
...
}
References
[1] HashiCorp dns_managed_zone
[2] Google Cloud Manage DNSSEC configuration
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark Recommendation 3.3
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 345
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000166, CCI-002418, CCI-002422
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SC
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1), SC-20 Secure Name/Address Resolution Service (Authoritative Source) (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity, SC-20 Secure Name/Address Resolution Service (Authoritative Source) (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.1 - Authentication and Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.1 - Authentication and Access Control
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.1.2 - Web Software Access Controls
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
desc.structural.hcl.gcp_terraform_misconfiguration_cloud_dns_dnssec_disabled

GCP Terraform Misconfiguration: Cloud Functions Missing Customer-Managed Encryption Key

Abstract
A Terraform configuration does not specify any customer-managed encryption key for data at rest.
Explanation
Customer-managed encryption keys (CMEK) are not enabled for data at rest.

By default, Google Cloud uses randomly generated Data Encryption Keys (DEK) to encrypt data at rest. The CMEK feature allows organizations to use cryptographic keys of their choice to encrypt DEK. This gives organizations better control over and logging of encryption processes.

As such, CMEK is often part of the solution to address requirements that include but are not limited to:
- Audit logs for sensitive data access
- Data residency
- Replacing, disabling, or destroying keys
- Tamper-resistant hardware security module
References
[1] Google Cloud Customer-managed encryption keys (CMEK)
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001350, CCI-002475
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 3.5.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 3.3.2, Requirement 3.3.3, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
desc.structural.hcl.iac.gcp_bad_practices_missing_customer_managed_encryption_key.base

GCP Terraform Misconfiguration: Cloud KMS CryptoKey Publicly Accessible

Abstract
A Terraform configuration grants public access to Cloud KMS CryptoKeys.
Explanation
Granting allUsers or allAuthenticatedUsers a Cloud KMS CryptoKey role gives anyone access to sensitive data.
References
[1] HashiCorp IAM policy for Google Cloud KMS crypto key
[2] Google Cloud Usage logs & storage logs
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark Recommendation 1.9
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 284, CWE ID 359
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235, CCI-002420
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1), AC-6 Least Privilege (P1), IA-8 Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users) (P1), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement, AC-6 Least Privilege, IA-8 Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 7.3.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 7.3.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.1.2 - Web Software Access Controls
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II
desc.structural.hcl.gcp_terraform_misconfiguration_cloud_kms_cryptokey_publicly_accessible

GCP Terraform Misconfiguration: Cloud Spanner Missing Customer-Managed Encryption Key

Abstract
A Terraform configuration does not specify any customer-managed encryption key for data at rest.
Explanation
Customer-managed encryption keys (CMEK) are not enabled for data at rest.

By default, Google Cloud uses randomly generated Data Encryption Keys (DEK) to encrypt data at rest. The CMEK feature allows organizations to use cryptographic keys of their choice to encrypt DEK. This gives organizations better control over and logging of encryption processes.

As such, CMEK is often part of the solution to address requirements that include but are not limited to:
- Audit logs for sensitive data access
- Data residency
- Replacing, disabling, or destroying keys
- Tamper-resistant hardware security module
References
[1] Google Cloud Customer-managed encryption keys (CMEK)
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001350, CCI-002475
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 3.5.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 3.3.2, Requirement 3.3.3, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
desc.structural.hcl.iac.gcp_bad_practices_missing_customer_managed_encryption_key.base

GCP Terraform Misconfiguration: Cloud SQL Backup Disabled

Abstract
A Terraform configuration sets up a database instance without backup configurations.
Explanation
Database backups are critical to protect against data loss or corruption. Automated backups of a Cloud SQL database instance should be explicitly configured and enabled.

Example 1: The following example shows a Terraform configuration that disables database instance backup configurations by setting enabled to false.

resource "google_sql_database_instance" "database_instance_demo" {
  ...
  settings {
    backup_configuration {
      enabled = false
      ...
    }
  }
}
References
[1] HashiCorp google_sql_database_instance
[2] Google Cloud About Cloud SQL backups
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark Recommendation 6.7
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 1188
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000366, CCI-003109
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-38 Operations Security (P0)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-38 Operations Security
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 8.1.5 General Data Protection (L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 12.10.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 12.10.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 12.10.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 2.2 - Secure Defaults
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 2.2 - Secure Defaults
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 2.2 - Secure Defaults
desc.structural.hcl.gcp_terraform_misconfiguration_cloud_sql_backup_disabled

GCP Terraform Misconfiguration: Cloud SQL Database Publicly Accessible

Abstract
A Terraform configuration enables public access to a Google Cloud SQL Database instance.
Explanation
Failure to block unwanted network traffic expands a cloud service's attack surface. Services open to interaction with the public are subjected to almost continuous scanning and probing by malicious entities.

By default, Terraform deploys a Google Cloud SQL Database instance that only accepts connections from private IP addresses. Optional Authorized Networks settings define acceptable ranges of public IP addresses.

Example 1: The following Terraform configuration sets value to 0.0.0.0/0 in the authorized_networks block. A CIDR block of /0 accepts connections from any IP address between 0.0.0.0 and 255.255.255.255.

resource "google_sql_database_instance" "db-demo" {
  ...
  settings {
  ...
    ip_configuration {
    ...
      authorized_networks {
        name  = "any ip"
        value = "0.0.0.0/0"
      }
    ...
    }
    ...
  }
  ...
}
References
[1] HashiCorp google_sql_database_instance
[2] Google Cloud Authorize with authorized networks
[3] Google Cloud Disable public IP
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark Recommendation 6.5
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 284
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-001084, CCI-002165
[7] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1), AC-6 Least Privilege (P1), SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement, AC-6 Least Privilege, SC-3 Security Function Isolation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 7.3.2
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 7.3.2
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
desc.structural.hcl.gcp_terraform_misconfiguration_cloud_sql_database_publicly_accessible

GCP Terraform Misconfiguration: Cloud Storage Bucket Publicly Accessible

Abstract
A Terraform configuration grants public access to a Cloud Storage Bucket.
Explanation
Granting allUsers or allAuthenticatedUsers a Cloud Storage role gives anyone access to sensitive data.
References
[1] HashiCorp IAM policy for Cloud Storage Bucket
[2] Google Cloud Public access prevention
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark Recommendation 5.1
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 284, CWE ID 359
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235, CCI-002420
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1), AC-6 Least Privilege (P1), IA-8 Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users) (P1), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement, AC-6 Least Privilege, IA-8 Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 7.3.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 7.3.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.1.2 - Web Software Access Controls
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II
desc.structural.hcl.gcp_terraform_misconfiguration_cloud_storage_bucket_publicly_accessible

GCP Terraform Misconfiguration: Cloud Storage Bucket Uniform Access Disabled

Abstract
A Terraform configuration sets up a Google Storage Bucket that allows the use of Access Control Lists for controlling permissions.
Explanation
Mismanagement of permissions increases the risk of unauthorized access to or modification of restricted data.

To define user permission for access to buckets and objects in buckets, Google Cloud Storage offers two systems: Access Control Lists (ACLs) and Identity and Access Management (IAM). IAM can be used throughout Google Cloud, while only Cloud Storage supports ACLs. Enabling Uniform Bucket-level Access prevents ACLs from granting permission. This ensures IAM is the only system to manage all access control of Google Cloud resources.

Example 1: The following Terraform configuration permits using ACLs alongside IAM to grant access to the storage bucket by setting uniform_bucket_level_access to false.

resource "google_storage_bucket" "bucket-demo" {
...
  uniform_bucket_level_access = false
...
}
References
[1] HashiCorp google_storage_bucket
[2] Google Cloud Uniform bucket-level access
[3] Google Cloud Organization policy constraints for Cloud Storage
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark Recommendation 5.2
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 284
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002121
[7] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-2 Account Management (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-2 Account Management
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.4.4 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002880 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002880 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002880 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002880 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002880 CAT II
desc.structural.hcl.gcp_terraform_misconfiguration_cloud_storage_bucket_uniform_access_disabled

GCP Terraform Misconfiguration: Compute Engine Access Control

Abstract
A Terraform configuration sets up a Compute Engine instance without using Identity and Access Management (IAM) roles to manage SSH access.
Explanation
The IAM-based access control reduces human errors and promotes efficiency. Enabling the OS Login permits the use of IAM roles to automate the lifecycle management of Linux accounts for accessing all Compute Engine instances in the same project or organization.

Example 1: The following example shows a Terraform configuration that disables the use of IAM roles to manage SSH access by setting enable-oslogin to false in the metadata argument.

resource "google_compute_instance" "compute-instance-demo" {
  ...
  metadata = {
    enable-oslogin = false
    ...
  }
  ...
}
References
[1] HashiCorp google_compute_instance
[2] Google Cloud About OS Login
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark Recommendation 4.4
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000015, CCI-002121
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-2 Account Management (P1), AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-2 Account Management, AC-3 Access Enforcement
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.1.6 Secure Software Development Lifecycle (L2 L3), 1.4.1 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 8.2.1
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 8.3.1
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 8.3.1
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.1.2 - Web Software Access Controls
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000280 CAT II, APSC-DV-002880 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000280 CAT II, APSC-DV-002880 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000280 CAT II, APSC-DV-002880 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000280 CAT II, APSC-DV-002880 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000280 CAT II, APSC-DV-002880 CAT II
desc.structural.hcl.gcp_terraform_misconfiguration_compute_engine_access_control