1576 items found
Weaknesses
Abstract
Multiple Struts2 validator references with the same name exist. Duplicate validator references are an indication that validation is not up to date.
Explanation
More than one validator definition was discovered in validators.xml. Multiple validation definitions with the same name may result in unexpected behavior.

If two validation classes are defined with the same name, the Struts Validator arbitrarily chooses one of the forms to use for input validation and discards the other. This decision might not correspond to the programmer's expectations. Moreover, it indicates that the validation logic is not being maintained, and can indicate that other, more subtle, validation errors are present.

It is critically important that validation logic be maintained and kept in sync with the rest of the application. Unchecked input is the root cause of some of today's worst and most common software security problems. Cross-site scripting, SQL injection, and process control vulnerabilities all stem from incomplete or absent input validation. Although J2EE applications are not generally susceptible to memory corruption attacks, if a J2EE application interfaces with native code that does not perform array bounds checking, an attacker may be able to use an input validation mistake in the J2EE application to launch a buffer overflow attack.
References
[1] T. Husted et al. Struts in Action: Building Web Applications with the Leading Java Framework Manning Publications
[2] The Struts2 Validation Framework The Apache Foundation
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 102
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[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 API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[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 Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.config.java.struts2_duplicate_validators
Abstract
Revealing detailed system information helps an adversary learn about the system and form a plan of attack.
Explanation
If the expose_php option is enabled, every response produced by the PHP interpreter includes the version of PHP installed on the host system. Armed with the version of PHP running on the remote server, an attacker may enumerate the known exploits against the system, which can greatly lower the cost of mounting a successful attack.
References
[1] M. Achour et al. PHP Manual
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 497
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001312, CCI-001314, CCI-002420
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement (P1), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1), SI-11 Error Handling (P2)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity, SI-11 Error Handling
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 14.3.3 Unintended Security Disclosure Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3620 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3620 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3620 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3620 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3620 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3620 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3620 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.structural.php.system_information_leak_php_version
Abstract
Granting overly excessive permissions might allow a malicious flash application to transmit sensitive information to an arbitrary remote site.
Explanation
When a Flash application is embedded within HTML, there are several flags that inform the Flash player if the SWF file can have access to content from the browser or from the network.
- AllowScriptAccess
This flag tells the Flash player to allow the SWF to communicate with the browser and HTML DOM using ExternalInterface, fscommand or getURL.
- AllowNetworkingAccess
This flag informs the Flash player that it is allowed to make networking calls like XML.load, loadVariables, LoadVars.load etc. If a Flash application should not communicate with the browser or needs to make any networking calls, the AllowNetworkingAccess tag must be set to "none".
1. If a Flash application should not communicate with the browser or needs to make any networking calls, the AllowNetworkingAccess tag must be set to "none".
2. If a Flash application should not communicate with the browser but needs to make networking calls, the AllowNetworkingAccess tag should be set to "internal".
3. If a Flash application needs to communicate with both the browser and the network, the AllowNetworkingAccess tag must be set to "all".
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 250
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [24] CWE ID 269
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [22] CWE ID 269
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [15] CWE ID 269
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 10.2.2 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[24] 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
[25] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.dynamic.actionscript.flash_bad_practices_insecure_embedded_swf_settings
Abstract
The application enables sensitive data logging, which can expose system information or compromise private user data.
Explanation
Avoid logging SQL queries in production systems. SQL queries often contain sensitive information, such as credit card details or social security numbers, and logging this information in plain text can compromise its confidentiality.

Example 1: The following Entity Framwork Core Framework code sets the EnableSensitiveDataLogging option to true which allows application data used in database commands to be included in logging and exception messages.

...
services.AddDbContext<ApplicationDbContext>(options => {
options.UseSqlServer(_configuration.GetConnectionString("ApplicationDbConnection"));
options.EnableSensitiveDataLogging(true);
});
...
References
[1] Microsoft DbContextOptionsBuilder.EnableSensitiveDataLogging Method
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 497
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001312, CCI-001314, CCI-002420
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement (P1), AC-23 Data Mining Protection (P0), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1), SI-11 Error Handling (P2)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement, AC-23 Data Mining Protection, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity, SI-11 Error Handling
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 14.3.3 Unintended Security Disclosure Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 3.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 3.4, Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 3.4, Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 3.4, Requirement 6.5.5
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 3.4, Requirement 6.5.5
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 3.4, Requirement 6.5.5
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 3.4, Requirement 6.5.5
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[28] 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
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective A.2.3 - Cardholder Data Protection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective A.2.3 - Cardholder Data Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective A.2.3 - Cardholder Data Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3620 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3620 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3620 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3620 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3620 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3620 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3620 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.semantic.dotnet.system_information_leak_overly_broad_sql_logging
Abstract
Logging too much information about SQL queries can expose system information or compromise private user data.
Explanation
Avoid logging SQL queries in production systems. SQL queries often contain sensitive information, such as credit card details or social security numbers, and logging this information in plain text can compromise its confidentiality.

Example 1: The following entries from log4j.properties file causes all queries to be logged at the info level.

...
log4j.logger.net.sf.hibernate.type=info
log4j.logger.net.sf.hibernate.tool.hbm2ddl=info
...
References
[1] Red Hat Middleware, LLC Hibernate Reference Documentation
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 497
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001312, CCI-001314, CCI-002420
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement (P1), AC-23 Data Mining Protection (P0), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1), SI-11 Error Handling (P2)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement, AC-23 Data Mining Protection, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity, SI-11 Error Handling
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 14.3.3 Unintended Security Disclosure Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 3.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 3.4, Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 3.4, Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 3.4, Requirement 6.5.5
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 3.4, Requirement 6.5.5
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 3.4, Requirement 6.5.5
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 3.4, Requirement 6.5.5
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[28] 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
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective A.2.3 - Cardholder Data Protection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective A.2.3 - Cardholder Data Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective A.2.3 - Cardholder Data Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3620 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3620 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3620 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3620 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3620 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3620 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3620 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.config.java.system_information_leak_overly_broad_sql_logging
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that can be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following ABAP code instructs the user's browser to open a URL parsed from the dest request parameter when a user clicks the link.


...
DATA: str_dest TYPE c.

str_dest = request->get_form_field( 'dest' ).
response->redirect( str_dest ).
...


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing they would be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user may be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 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.abap.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that can be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following ActionScript code instructs the user's browser to open a URL read from the dest request parameter when a user clicks the link.


...
var params:Object = LoaderInfo(this.root.loaderInfo).parameters;
var strDest:String = String(params["dest"]);
host.updateLocation(strDest);
...


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing they would be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user may be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 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.actionscript.open_redirect
Abstract
A file passes unvalidated data to an HTTP redirect.
Explanation
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks. Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications use redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that an attacker can control.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following Visualforce action method returns a PageReference object consisting of a URL from the dest request parameter.


public PageReference pageAction() {
...
PageReference ref = ApexPages.currentPage();
Map<String,String> params = ref.getParameters();
return new PageReference(params.get('dest'));
}


If a victim receives an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.vf.force.com/apex/vfpage?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user might click on the link believing they will visit a trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails and make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user might be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 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.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that can be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following code instructs the user's browser to open a URL parsed from the dest request parameter when a user clicks the link.


String redirect = Request["dest"];
Response.Redirect(redirect);


If a victim receives an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user might click on the link believing they would be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user may be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 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.dotnet.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that can be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following JSP code instructs the user's browser to open a URL parsed from the dest request parameter when a user clicks the link.


...
final server = await HttpServer.bind(host, port);
await for (HttpRequest request in server) {
final response = request.response;
final headers = request.headers;
final strDest = headers.value('strDest');
response.headers.contentType = ContentType.text;
response.redirect(Uri.parse(strDest!));
await response.close();
}
...


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing they would be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user might be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 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.dart.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that an attacker can control.

Attackers can utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following code instructs the user's browser to open a URL parsed from the dest request parameter when a user clicks the link.


...
strDest := r.Form.Get("dest")
http.Redirect(w, r, strDest, http.StatusSeeOther)
...


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing they will be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 redirects the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination URL as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user can be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 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.golang.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that can be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following Spring WebFlow flow state definition instructs the user's browser to open a URL parsed from the dest request parameter when a user clicks the link.


<end-state id="redirectView" view="externalRedirect:#{requestParameters.dest}" />


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing they would be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user may be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 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.configuration.java.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that can be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following JavaScript code instructs the user's browser to open a URL read from the dest request parameter when a user clicks the link.


...
strDest = form.dest.value;
window.open(strDest,"myresults");
...


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing they would be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user may be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 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.javascript.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that can be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following PHP code instructs the user's browser to open a URL parsed from the dest request parameter when a user clicks the link.


<%
...
$strDest = $_GET["dest"];
header("Location: " . $strDest);
...
%>


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.php?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing they would be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.php?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user may be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 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.php.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that can be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following procedure instructs the user's browser to open a URL parsed from the dest request parameter when a user clicks the link.


...
-- Assume QUERY_STRING looks like dest=http://www.wilyhacker.com
dest := SUBSTR(OWA_UTIL.get_cgi_env('QUERY_STRING'), 6);
OWA_UTIL.redirect_url('dest');
...


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.example.com/pls/hr/showemps?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing they would be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/pls/hr/showemps?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user may be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 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.sql.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that can be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following Python code instructs the user's browser to open a URL parsed from the dest request parameter when a user clicks the link.


...
strDest = request.field("dest")
redirect(strDest)
...


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing they would be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user may be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 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.python.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that can be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following Ruby code instructs the user's browser to open a URL parsed from the dest request parameter:


...
str_dest = req.params['dest']
...
res = Rack::Response.new
...
res.redirect("http://#{dest}")
...


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing they would be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user may be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 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.ruby.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that can be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following Play controller method instructs the user's browser to open a URL parsed from the dest request parameter.


def myAction = Action { implicit request =>
...
request.getQueryString("dest") match {
case Some(location) => Redirect(location)
case None => Ok("No url found!")
}
...
}


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing they would be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user may be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 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.scala.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that may be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following code handles any requests that use the application's custom URL scheme, sets the requestToLoad to point to the original URL's "dest" parameter if it exists and to the original URL using the http:// scheme otherwise, and finally loads this request within a WKWebView:

AppDelegate.swift:

...
let requestToLoad : String
...
func application(app: UIApplication, openURL url: NSURL, options: [String : AnyObject]) -> Bool {
...
if let urlComponents = NSURLComponents(URL: url, resolvingAgainstBaseURL: false) {
if let queryItems = urlComponents.queryItems as? [NSURLQueryItem]{
for queryItem in queryItems {
if queryItem.name == "dest" {
if let value = queryItem.value {
request = NSURLRequest(URL:NSURL(string:value))
requestToLoad = request
break
}
}
}
}
if requestToLoad == nil {
urlComponents.scheme = "http"
requestToLoad = NSURLRequest(URL:urlComponents.URL)
}
}
...
}
...


ViewController.swift

...
let webView : WKWebView
let appDelegate = UIApplication.sharedApplication().delegate as! AppDelegate
webView.loadRequest(appDelegate.requestToLoad)
...


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "custom_url_scheme://innocent_url?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing that it would perform an innocent action. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will attempt to request and load "http://www.wilyhacker.com" in the WKWebView.

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination url as follows:

"custom_url_scheme://innocent_url?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user may be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 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.swift.open_redirect
Abstract
Allowing unvalidated input to control the URL used in a redirect can aid phishing attacks.
Explanation
Redirects allow web applications to direct users to different pages within the same application or to external sites. Applications utilize redirects to aid in site navigation and, in some cases, to track how users exit the site. Open redirect vulnerabilities occur when a web application redirects clients to any arbitrary URL that can be controlled by an attacker.

Attackers might utilize open redirects to trick users into visiting a URL to a trusted site, but then redirecting them to a malicious site. By encoding the URL, an attacker can make it difficult for end-users to notice the malicious destination of the redirect, even when it is passed as a URL parameter to the trusted site. Open redirects are often abused as part of phishing scams to harvest sensitive end-user data.

Example 1: The following VB code instructs the user's browser to open a URL parsed from the dest request parameter when a user clicks the link.


...
strDest = Request.Form('dest')
HyperLink.NavigateTo strDest
...


If a victim received an email instructing them to follow a link to "http://www.trustedsite.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com", the user would likely click on the link believing they would be transferred to the trusted site. However, when the victim clicks the link, the code in Example 1 will redirect the browser to "http://www.wilyhacker.com".

Many users have been educated to always inspect URLs they receive in emails to make sure the link specifies a trusted site they know. However, if the attacker Hex encoded the destination url as follows:
"http://www.trustedsite.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

then even a savvy end-user may be fooled into following the link.
References
[1] Phishers use IRS tax refund as bait CNet News
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[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 - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.vb.open_redirect
Abstract
The program accesses the device's GPS location.
Explanation
Access to GPS location information can compromise a user's privacy and personal safety. Programs that access GPS location information must be careful to manage it with the utmost caution.

Example 1: The following code requests to receive updates to the changes of the location of the phone.

lm.requestLocationUpdates(LocationManager.GPS_PROVIDER, 1000, 0, locationListener);
References
[1] Using Permissions
[2] Securing the Presidential Blackberry PC World
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 250
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [15] CWE ID 269
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235
[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-6 Least Privilege (P1), CM-7 Least Functionality (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege, CM-7 Least Functionality
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 10.2.2 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[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
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[29] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[30] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.semantic.java.privilege_management_android_location
Abstract
Some permissions specified for Intents are more dangerous to use than others, as they can unintentionally enable other applications to read from or write to resources.
Explanation
Some permissions on Intents are there to be able to grant permissions to external programs that do not usually have that permission, such as FLAG_GRANT_READ_URI_PERMISSION and FLAG_GRANT_WRITE_URI_PERMISSION. If a malicious program is able to intercept this intent, it will then gain permission to read from or write to the specified URI. These can often be more susceptible to being intercepted if the intent is implicit rather than explicit.

Example 1: The following code sets the permission flag to enable writing to a URI within the Intent.


myIntent.setFlags(Intent.FLAG_GRANT_WRITE_URI_PERMISSION);
References
[1] DRD05-J. Do not grant URI permissions on implicit intents CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 267
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [15] CWE ID 269
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-6 Least Privilege (P1), CM-7 Least Functionality (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege, CM-7 Least Functionality
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 7.2.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[30] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.semantic.java.privilege_management_dangerous_intent_permission
Abstract
Insecure caching policies can enable an attacker to conduct content spoofing or information theft attacks.
Explanation
While content transmitted over an SSL/TLS channel is expected to guarantee confidentiality, administrators must nonetheless ensure that caching of sensitive content is disabled unless absolutely needed. The misconception that secure content caching is disabled by default by user-agents could cause the application to fail the organization's cache policy by leaving the secure content cacheable by browsers. Unsafe specification such as Cache-Control: public would instruct the browser to persistently cache the content on the hard drive. Caching can be prevented by specifying one of the following three directives in the response headers
- Cache-control: private
- Cache-Control: no-cache
- Cache-Control: no-store
SSL provides a secure encrypted channel to transfer information from source to user. The information served over SSL is considered sensitive and trusted to be only available to requestor. However, caching this content on disk in temporary internet files or in intermediate proxy server can compromise that trust by exposing it to everyone who has access to these temporary storage or proxy cache. Content served over SSL must have cache disabled.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 525
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002361
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-12 Session Termination (P2), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-12 Session Termination, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 8.2.1 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.1 General Data Protection (L2 L3), 8.1.2 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M5 Insecure Communication
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.9
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[37] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.dynamic.xtended_preview.cache_management_insecure_policy
Abstract
The application specifies ASP.NET Core logging middleware incorrectly.
Explanation
ASP.NET Core middleware that is not added to the middleware pipeline in the correct order will not function as intended, leaving an application open to a variety of security issues.

Example 1: The UseHttpLogging() method adds HTTP logging middleware to the middleware pipeline which allows middleware components to log. When specified in the wrong order as shown, no middleware added to the pipeline before the call to UseHttpLogging() will log.


...
var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(...);
var app = builder.Build(...);
app.UseStaticFiles();
app.UseRouting();
app.UseSession();
app.UseAuthentication();
app.UseAuthorization();
app.UseEndpoints(endpoints =>
{
...
}

app.UseHttpLogging();
...
Example 2: The UseWC3Logging() method adds W3C logging middleware to the middleware pipeline which allows middleware components to log. When specified in the wrong order as shown, no middleware added to the pipeline before the call to UseWC3Logging() will log.


...
var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(...);
var app = builder.Build(...);
app.UseStaticFiles();
app.UseRouting();
app.UseSession();
app.UseAuthentication();
app.UseAuthorization();
app.UseEndpoints(endpoints =>
{
...
}

app.UseWC3Logging();
...
References
[1] Rick Anderson, Steve Smith ASP.NET Core Middleware Microsoft
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 696, CWE ID 778
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000172
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), AU-12 Audit Generation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-10 Non-Repudiation, AU-12 Audit Record Generation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 7.1.3 Log Content Requirements (L2 L3), 7.1.4 Log Content Requirements (L2 L3), 7.2.1 Log Processing Requirements (L2 L3), 7.2.2 Log Processing Requirements (L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration, A10 Insufficient Logging and Monitoring
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10, Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.1.4, Requirement 10.2.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.1.4, Requirement 10.2.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 8.2 - Activity Tracking
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 8.2 - Activity Tracking
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 8.2 - Activity Tracking
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.controlflow.dotnet.asp_dotnet_middleware_out_of_order_insufficient_logging
Abstract
The program performs SMS operations.
Explanation
SMS operations must not be performed without cause or consideration. Malicious software exploits these APIs to steal money and data from unwary users.

Example 1: In this case, the program sends a text based SMS.

sms.sendTextMessage(recipient, null, message, PendingIntent.getBroadcast(SmsMessaging.this, 0, new Intent(ACTION_SMS_SENT), 0), null);
References
[1] Using Permissions
[2] First SMS Trojan detected for smartphones running Android
[3] Mark L. Murphy Beginning Android Apress
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 250
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [15] CWE ID 269
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-6 Least Privilege (P1), CM-7 Least Functionality (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege, CM-7 Least Functionality
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 10.2.2 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.semantic.java.privilege_management_android_messaging
Abstract
The program performs operations related to making and receiving telephone calls.
Explanation
Operations related to making and receiving telephone calls must not be performed without cause or consideration. Malicious software exploits these APIs to call premium-pay numbers, thereby stealing money from unwary users.

Example 1: The following code requests the complete voicemail number.

number = tm.getCompleteVoiceMailNumber(); 
References
[1] Using Permissions
[2] Mark L. Murphy Beginning Android 2 Apress
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 250
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [15] CWE ID 269
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235
[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-6 Least Privilege (P1), CM-7 Least Functionality (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege, CM-7 Least Functionality
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 10.2.2 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[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
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[29] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[30] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.semantic.java.privilege_management_android_telephony
Abstract
The program performs audio recording operations.
Explanation
Audio recording operations must not be performed without cause or consideration. Malicious software exploits these APIs to steal money and data from unwary users.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 250
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [15] CWE ID 269
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-6 Least Privilege (P1), CM-7 Least Functionality (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege, CM-7 Least Functionality
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 10.2.2 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 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
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[28] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.semantic.java.privilege_management_android_recording
Abstract
Security constraints that specify HTTP verbs often allow more access than intended.
Explanation
An application's authentication and authorization mechanisms can be bypassed with HTTP verb tampering when:
1) It uses a security control that lists HTTP verbs.
2) The security control fails to block verbs that are not listed.
3) The application updates its state based on GET requests or other arbitrary HTTP verbs.



The following configuration is vulnerable to HTTP Verb Tampering:

<authorization>
<allow verbs="GET,POST" users="admin"/>
<deny verbs="GET,POST"users="*" />
</authorization>

By default, the .NET framework allows all HTTP verbs, so even though this configuration denies GETs and POSTs to all users, it does not prevent HEAD requests. It might be possible for an attacker to exercise administrative functionality by substituting GET or POST requests with HEAD requests. In other words, this code satisfies the previously mentioned conditions 1 and 2. All that remains for HEAD requests to exercise administrative functionality is for the application to carry out commands based on requests that use verbs other than POST.

At its core, this vulnerability is the result of an attempt to create a deny list--a policy that specifies what users are not allowed to do. Deny lists rarely achieve their intended effect.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 288, CWE ID 302
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [25] CWE ID 306
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[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)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API5 Broken Function Level Authorization
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.10
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.10
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authentication
desc.config.dotnet.http_verb_tampering
Abstract
Security constraints that specify HTTP verbs often allow more access than intended.
Explanation
An application's authentication and authorization mechanisms can be bypassed with HTTP verb tampering when:
1) It uses a security control that lists HTTP verbs.
2) The security control fails to block verbs that are not listed.
3) The application updates its state based on GET requests or other arbitrary HTTP verbs.



Most Java EE implementations allow HTTP methods that are not explicitly listed in the configuration. For example the following security constraint is applied to the HTTP GET method but not to other HTTP verbs:


<security-constraint>
<display-name>Admin Constraint</display-name>
<web-resource-collection>
<web-resource-name>Admin Area</web-resource-name>
<url-pattern>/pages/index.jsp</url-pattern>
<url-pattern>/admin/*.do</url-pattern>
<http-method>GET</http-method>
<http-method>POST</http-method>
</web-resource-collection>
<auth-constraint>
<description>only admin</description>
<role-name>admin</role-name>
</auth-constraint>
</security-constraint>


Since verbs like HEAD are not explicitly defined in an <http-method> tag in this configuration, it might be possible to exercise administrative functionality by substituting GET or POST requests with HEAD requests. For HEAD requests to exercise administrative functionality, condition 3 must hold - the application must carry out commands based on verbs other than POST. Some web/application servers will accept arbitrary non-standard HTTP verbs and respond as if they were given a GET request. If that is the case, an attacker would be able to view administrative pages by using an arbitrary verb in a request.

For example, a typically client GET requests looks like:

GET /admin/viewUsers.do HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.com


In an HTTP Verb Tampering attack, an attacker would substitute GET with something like FOO

FOO /admin/viewUsers.do HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.com


At its core, this vulnerability is the result of an attempt to create a deny list--a policy that specifies what users are not allowed to do. Deny lists rarely achieve their intended effect.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 288, CWE ID 302
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [25] CWE ID 306
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[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)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API5 Broken Function Level Authorization
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.10
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.10
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authentication
desc.config.java.http_verb_tampering
Abstract
Unsafe caching of the preflight response can result in unauthorized cross domain access to sensitive resources based on an invalid policy.
Explanation
Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS), allows a domain to define a policy for its resources to be accessed by a web page hosted on a different domain using cross domain XML HTTP Requests (XHR). Historically, the browser restricts cross domain XHR requests to abide by the same origin policy. At its basic form, the same origin policy sets the script execution scope to the resources available on the current domain and prohibits any communication to domains outside this scope. Therefore, execution and incorporation of remote methods and functions hosted on domains outside of the current domain are effectively prohibited. While CORS is supported on all major browsers, it also requires that the domain correctly defines the CORS policy in order to have its resources shared with another domain. These restrictions are managed by access policies typically included in specialized response headers, such as:

- Access-Control-Allow-Origin
- Access-Control-Allow-Headers
- Access-Control-Allow-Methods
- Access-Control-Max-Age

The browser generates a preflight OPTIONS request whenever the cross domain request made by the web page is anything other than a simple HTTP request. A GET or POST HTTP request with no special headers or credentials is considered a simple request. A response for a preflight request exposes the server's CORS policy via specialized headers mentioned previously. After examining the required permissions, the browser makes the actual request that the web page initially performed. This extra preflight request adds overhead and hence the server can configure its preflight response to be cached.
Prolonged caching of a preflight response can pose a security threat as the policy can be updated on the server while a browser will still allow unauthorized access to resources based on the original cached policy. The time a response is allowed to be cached is conveyed using an Access-Control-Max-Age response header and a value of more than 30 minutes is considered to be prolonged.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 525
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001368, CCI-001414
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 8.1.1 General Data Protection (L2 L3), 8.1.2 General Data Protection (L2 L3), 8.2.1 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 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 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective C.3.6 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.dynamic.html.html5_cors_prolonged_caching_of_preflight_response
Abstract
Unchecked arguments to methods that control permissions or access control lists can allow attackers to access sensitive data.
Explanation
Attackers may exploit vulnerabilities in unchecked permissions in the following way:

1. Data enters the application from an untrusted source.

2. The data is used to represent the user or group identifier, list of permissions, or the resource to which the permission is applied, without undergoing any prior sanity checks. The application then uses this non-sanitized data to edit permission settings.
References
[1] MSC03-J. Never hard code sensitive information CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 266
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [15] CWE ID 269
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[28] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[29] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.dataflow.java.privilege_management_amazon_web_services_unchecked_permissions
Abstract
Sending unvalidated data to a web browser can result in the browser executing malicious code.
Explanation
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web or mobile application through an untrusted source. In the case of Inter-Component Communication XSS, the untrusted source is data received from other components that reside on the same system. In the mobile world, these are applications running on the same device. In the case of reflected XSS, the untrusted source is typically a web request, while in the case of persisted (also known as stored) XSS it is typically a database or other back-end data store.


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

The malicious content sent to the web browser often takes the form of a JavaScript segment, but can also include HTML, Flash or any other type of code that the browser executes. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site.

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

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


String eid = Request["eid"];
...
EmployeeID.Text = eid;


Where EmployeeID is a server-side ASP.NET control defined as follows:


<form runat="server">
...
<asp:Label id="EmployeeID" runat="server"/>
...
</form>


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

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

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


...
string name = "";
using (SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection(_ConnectionString))
{
string eid = Request["eid"];
SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand("SELECT * FROM emp WHERE id = @id", conn);
cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("@id", eid);
conn.Open();
SqlDataReader objReader = cmd.ExecuteReader();

while (objReader.Read())
{
name = objReader["name"];
}
objReader.Close();
}
...

EmployeeName.Text = name;


Where EmployeeName is a server-side ASP.NET control defined as follows:


<form runat="server">
...
<asp:Label id="EmployeeName" runat="server"/>
...
</form>


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

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

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

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

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

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source. In the case of Inter-Component Communication XSS, the untrusted source is data received from other components that reside on the same system. In the case of reflected XSS, the untrusted source is typically a web request, while in the case of persisted (also known as stored) XSS it is typically a database or other back-end data store.

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

The malicious content sent to the web browser often takes the form of a JavaScript segment, but can also include HTML, Flash or any other type of code that the browser executes. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site.


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

- A source outside the application stores dangerous data in a database or other data store, and the dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application as trusted data and included in dynamic content.
References
[1] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[2] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 80
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [1] CWE ID 079
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.golang.cross_site_scripting_inter_component_communication
Abstract
Sending unvalidated data to a web browser can result in the browser executing malicious code.
Explanation
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web or mobile application through an untrusted source. In the case of Inter-Component Communication XSS, the untrusted source is data received from other components that reside on the same system. In the mobile world, these are applications running on the same device. In the case of reflected XSS, the untrusted source is typically a web request, while in the case of persisted (also known as stored) XSS it is typically a database or other back-end data store.


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

The malicious content sent to the web browser often takes the form of a JavaScript segment, but can also include HTML, Flash or any other type of code that the browser executes. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site.

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

Example 1: The following code enables JavaScript in Android's WebView (by default, JavaScript is disabled) and loads a page based on the value received from an Android intent.


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


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

Example 2: The following JSP code segment reads an employee ID, eid, from an HTTP request and displays it to the user.


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


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

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

Example 3: The following JSP code segment queries a database for an employee with a given ID and prints the corresponding employee's name.


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

Employee Name: <%= name %>


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

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

- As in Example 1, a source outside the application stores dangerous data in a database or other data store, and the dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application as trusted data and included in dynamic content.

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

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

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

1. Data enters a web application through an untrusted source. In the case of Inter-Component Communication XSS, the untrusted source is data received from other components that reside on the same system. In the mobile environment, these are applications running on the same device. In the case of reflected XSS, the untrusted source is typically a web request, while in the case of persisted (also known as stored) XSS it is typically a database or other back-end data store.


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

The malicious content sent to the web browser often takes the form of a JavaScript segment, but can also include HTML, Flash or any other type of code that the browser executes. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site.

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

Example 1: The following code enables JavaScript in Android's WebView (by default, JavaScript is disabled) and loads a page based on the value received from an Android intent.


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


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

Example 2: The following code reads an employee ID, eid, from an HTTP servlet request, then displays the value back to the user in the servlet's response.


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


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

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

Example 3: The following code segment queries a database for an employee with a given ID and prints the corresponding employee's name in the servlet's response.


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


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

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

- As in Example 1, a source outside the application stores dangerous data in a database or other data store, and the dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application as trusted data and included in dynamic content.

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

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


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

1. Data enters a web or mobile application through an untrusted source. In the case of Inter-Component Communication XSS, the untrusted source is data received from other components that reside on the same system. In the mobile world, these are applications running on the same device. In the case of reflected XSS, the untrusted source is typically a web request, while in the case of Persistent (also known as stored) XSS it is typically a database or other back-end data store.


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

The malicious content sent to the web browser often takes the form of a JavaScript segment, but can also include HTML, Flash or any other type of code that the browser executes. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site.

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

Example 1: The following code enables an application to load an html page within a WKWebView with data from a URL request that uses the application's custom URL scheme:

AppDelegate.m:

...
@property (strong, nonatomic) NSString *webContentFromURL;
...
- (BOOL)application:(UIApplication *)application openURL:(NSURL *)url sourceApplication:(NSString *)sourceApplication annotation:(id)annotation {
...
[self setWebContentFromURL:[url host]];
...
...


ViewController.m

...
@property (strong, nonatomic) WKWebView *webView;
...
AppDelegate *appDelegate = (AppDelegate *)[[UIApplication sharedApplication] delegate];
...
[_webView loadHTMLString:appDelegate.webContentFromURL] baseURL:nil];
...


Because the string passed to loadHTMLString: is user-controllable and JavaScript is enabled by default within a WKWebView, the user can write arbitrary content (including executable scripts) to the WKWebView via requests that use app's custom URL scheme.

Example 2: The following code reads the contents of a UITextField and displays it to the user within a WKWebView:


...
@property (strong, nonatomic) WKWebView *webView;
@property (strong, nonatomic) UITextField *inputTextField;
...
[_webView loadHTMLString:_inputTextField.text baseURL:nil];
...


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

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

Example 3: The following code segment queries a database for an employee with a given ID and outputs the value in the display content of a WKWebView.


...
@property (strong, nonatomic) WKWebView *webView;
...
NSFetchRequest *fetchRequest = [[NSFetchRequest alloc] init];
NSEntityDescription *entity = [NSEntityDescription entityForName:@"Employee" inManagedObjectContext:context];
[fetchRequest setEntity:entity];

NSArray *fetchedObjects = [context executeFetchRequest:fetchRequest error:&error];
for (NSManagedObject *info in fetchedObjects) {
NSString msg = @"Hello, " + [info valueForKey:@"name"];
[_webView loadHTMLString:msg baseURL:nil]
...
}
...


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

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

- As in Example 1, a source outside the target application makes a URL request using the target application's custom URL scheme, and unvalidated data from the URL request subsequently read back into the application as trusted data and included in dynamic content.

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

- As in Example 3, the application stores dangerous data in a database or other trusted data store. The dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application and included in dynamic content. Persistent XSS exploits occur when an attacker injects dangerous content into a data store that is later read and included in dynamic content. From an attacker's perspective, the optimal place to inject malicious content is in an area that is displayed to either many users or particularly interesting users. Interesting users typically have elevated privileges in the application or interact with sensitive data that is valuable to the attacker. If one of these users executes malicious content, the attacker may be able to perform privileged operations on behalf of the user or gain access to sensitive data belonging to the user.
References
[1] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[2] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[3] W/Labs Continued Adventures with iOS UIWebViews
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 80
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [1] CWE ID 079
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.objc.cross_site_scripting_inter_component_communication
Abstract
Sending unvalidated data to a web browser can result in the browser executing malicious code.
Explanation
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters a web or mobile application through an untrusted source. In the case of Inter-Component Communication XSS, the untrusted source is data received from other components that reside on the same system. In the mobile world, these are applications running on the same device. In the case of reflected XSS, the untrusted source is typically a web request, while in the case of Persistent (also known as stored) XSS it is typically a database or other back-end data store.


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

The malicious content sent to the web browser often takes the form of a JavaScript segment, but can also include HTML, Flash or any other type of code that the browser executes. The variety of attacks based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data such as cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site.

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

Example 1: The following code enables an application to load an html page within a WKWebView with data from a URL request that uses the application's custom URL scheme:


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


Because the string passed to loadHTMLString: is user-controllable and JavaScript is enabled by default within a WKWebView, the user can write arbitrary content (including executable scripts) to the WKWebView via requests that use app's custom URL scheme.

Example 2: The following code reads the contents of a UITextField and displays it to the user within a WKWebView:


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


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

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

Example 3: The following code segment queries a database for an employee with a given ID and outputs the value in the display content of a WKWebView.


let fetchRequest = NSFetchRequest()
let entity = NSEntityDescription.entityForName("Employee", inManagedObjectContext: managedContext)
fetchRequest.entity = entity
do {
let results = try managedContext.executeFetchRequest(fetchRequest)
let result : NSManagedObject = results.first!
let name : String = result.valueForKey("name")
let msg : String = "Hello, \(name)"
let webView : UIWebView = UIWebView()
webView.loadHTMLString(msg, baseURL:nil)
} catch let error as NSError {
print("Error \(error)")
}


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

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

- As in Example 1, a source outside the target application makes a URL request using the target application's custom URL scheme, and unvalidated data from the URL request subsequently read back into the application as trusted data and included in dynamic content.

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

- As in Example 3, the application stores dangerous data in a database or other trusted data store. The dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application and included in dynamic content. Persistent XSS exploits occur when an attacker injects dangerous content into a data store that is later read and included in dynamic content. From an attacker's perspective, the optimal place to inject malicious content is in an area that is displayed to either many users or particularly interesting users. Interesting users typically have elevated privileges in the application or interact with sensitive data that is valuable to the attacker. If one of these users executes malicious content, the attacker may be able to perform privileged operations on behalf of the user or gain access to sensitive data belonging to the user.
References
[1] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[2] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[3] W/Labs Continued Adventures with iOS UIWebViews
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 80
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [1] CWE ID 079
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.swift.cross_site_scripting_inter_component_communication
Abstract
Use of Java applets can lead to sensitive information disclosure.
Explanation
Programmers often entrust the applet code with sensitive information without realizing that applets can be easily decompiled and can expose any sensitive data hardcoded in the code. An attacker could decompile the applet and gain access to confidential information, including any hard-coded passwords and keys, within the applet. Java applets pose various risks including:

- Intellectual property theft
- Understanding of the security controls implemented by the application
- Extraction of confidential information, such as hard-coded passwords and keys
- Malicious alterations to the code with the purpose of compromising unsuspecting application users
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 200
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M2 Inadequate Supply Chain Security
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[15] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.dynamic.java.insecure_deployment_java_applet
Abstract
Multiple validation forms with the same name indicate that validation logic is not up-to-date.
Explanation
If two validation forms have the same name, the Struts Validator arbitrarily chooses one of the forms to use for input validation and discards the other. This decision might not correspond to the programmer's expectations. Moreover, it indicates that the validation logic is not being maintained, and can indicate that other, more subtle, validation errors are present.

Example 1: Two validation forms with the same name.


<form-validation>
<formset>
<form name="ProjectForm">
...
</form>
<form name="ProjectForm">
...
</form>
</formset>
</form-validation>


It is critically important that validation logic be maintained and kept in sync with the rest of the application. Unchecked input is the root cause of some of today's worst and most common software security problems. Cross-site scripting, SQL injection, and process control vulnerabilities all stem from incomplete or absent input validation. Although J2EE applications are not generally susceptible to memory corruption attacks, if a J2EE application interfaces with native code that does not perform array bounds checking, an attacker may be able to use an input validation mistake in the J2EE application to launch a buffer overflow attack.
References
[1] T. Husted et al. Struts in Action: Building Web Applications with the Leading Java Framework Manning Publications
[2] The Struts project The Apache Foundation
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 102
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.config.java.struts_duplicate_validate_forms
Abstract
Presence of a malicious application might indicate that an attacker installed a backdoor that could render all the application security controls ineffective.
Explanation
Attackers frequently install backdoors in the form of a PHP Shell, which attackers use to execute commands to the underlying operating system with at least the permissions of the web server. This means that attackers can modify or read any file that the web server is capable of reading. In worst cases, the attacker can install malware and take over the server machine. Presence of such a program could either indicate a successful compromise of the application or an insider threat.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 506
[2] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-3 Malicious Code Protection (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-3 Malicious Code Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M2 Inadequate Supply Chain Security
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 5.1
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 5.1
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 5.1
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 5.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 5.2.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 5.2.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 10.2 - Threat and Vulnerability Management
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 10.2 - Threat and Vulnerability Management
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 10.2 - Threat and Vulnerability Management
desc.dynamic.xtended_preview.insecure_deployment_malicious_application
Abstract
Validation fields that do not appear in forms they are associated with indicate that the validation logic is out of date.
Explanation
It is easy for developers to forget to update validation logic when they make changes to an ActionForm class. One indication that validation logic is not being properly maintained is inconsistencies between the action form and the validation form.

Example 1.a: An action form with two fields.


public class DateRangeForm extends ValidatorForm {
String startDate, endDate;
public void setStartDate(String startDate) {
this.startDate = startDate;
}
public void setEndDate(String endDate) {
this.endDate = endDate;
}
}


Example 1.a shows an action form that has two fields, startDate and endDate.

Example 1.b: A validation form with a third field.


<form name="DateRangeForm">
<field property="startDate" depends="date">
<arg0 key="start.date"/>
</field>
<field property="endDate" depends="date">
<arg0 key="end.date"/>
</field>
<field property="scale" depends="integer">
<arg0 key="range.scale"/>
</field>
</form>


Example 1.b lists a validation form for the action form. The validation form lists a third field: scale. The presence of the third field suggests that DateRangeForm was modified without taking validation into account.

It is critically important that validation logic be maintained and kept in sync with the rest of the application. Unchecked input is the root cause of some of today's worst and most common software security problems. Cross-site scripting, SQL injection, and process control vulnerabilities all stem from incomplete or absent input validation. Although J2EE applications are not generally susceptible to memory corruption attacks, if a J2EE application interfaces with native code that does not perform array bounds checking, an attacker may be able to use an input validation mistake in the J2EE application to launch a buffer overflow attack.
References
[1] T. Husted et al. Struts in Action: Building Web Applications with the Leading Java Framework Manning Publications
[2] The Struts project The Apache Foundation
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 110
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[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 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.config.java.struts_validator_without_form_field