135 items found
Weaknesses
Abstract
A hardcoded salt can compromise system security in a way that cannot be easily remedied.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode a salt. Not only does a hardcoded salt allow all of the project's developers to view the salt, it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, the salt cannot be easily changed. If attackers know the value of the salt, they can compute "rainbow tables" for the application and more easily determine the hashed values.
Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded salt:

...
PKCS5_PBKDF2_HMAC(pass, strlen(pass), "2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$", 2, ITERATION, EVP_sha512(), outputBytes, digest);
...


This code will run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will have access to the salt. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the salt "2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$". An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 760
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.4.1 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.2 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.5 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.3 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.2 Algorithms (L2 L3), 8.3.7 Sensitive Private Data (L2 L3), 9.1.2 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.3 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 759
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.1 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.1 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.1 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.1 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.1 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.1 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II, APSC-DV-002290 CAT II
desc.semantic.cpp.weak_cryptographic_hash_hardcoded_pbe_salt
Abstract
A hardcoded salt can compromise system security in a way that cannot be easily remedied.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode a salt. Not only does a hardcoded salt allow all of the project's developers to view the salt, it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, the salt cannot be easily changed. If attackers know the value of the salt, they can compute "rainbow tables" for the application and more easily determine the hashed values.
Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded salt:

...
private static final String salt = "2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$";
...
PBEKeySpec pbeSpec=new PBEKeySpec(password);
SecretKeyFactory keyFact=SecretKeyFactory.getInstance(CIPHER_ALG);
PBEParameterSpec defParams=new PBEParameterSpec(salt,100000);
Cipher cipher=Cipher.getInstance(CIPHER_ALG);
cipher.init(cipherMode,keyFact.generateSecret(pbeSpec),defParams);
...


This code will run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will have access to the salt. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the salt "2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$". An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system.
References
[1] MSC03-J. Never hard code sensitive information CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 760
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.4.1 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.2 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.5 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.3 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.2 Algorithms (L2 L3), 8.3.7 Sensitive Private Data (L2 L3), 9.1.2 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.3 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 759
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.1 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.1 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.1 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.1 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.1 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.1 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.1 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II, APSC-DV-002290 CAT II
desc.semantic.java.weak_cryptographic_hash_hardcoded_pbe_salt
Abstract
A hardcoded salt can compromise system security in a way that cannot be easily remedied.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode a salt. Not only does a hardcoded salt allow all of the project's developers to view the salt, it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, the salt cannot be easily changed. If attackers know the value of the salt, they can compute "rainbow tables" for the application and more easily determine the hashed values.
Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded salt:

...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(kCCPBKDF2,
password,
passwordLen,
"2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$",
2,
kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256,
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen);
...


This code will run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will have access to the salt. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the salt "2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$". An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 760
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.4.1 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.2 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.5 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.3 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.2 Algorithms (L2 L3), 8.3.7 Sensitive Private Data (L2 L3), 9.1.2 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.3 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 759
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.1 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.1 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.1 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.1 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.1 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.1 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II, APSC-DV-002290 CAT II
desc.structural.objc.weak_cryptographic_hash_hardcoded_pbe_salt
Abstract
A hardcoded salt can compromise system security in a way that cannot be easily remedied.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode a salt. Not only does a hardcoded salt allow all of the project's developers to view the salt, it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, the salt cannot be easily changed. If attackers know the value of the salt, they can compute "rainbow tables" for the application and more easily determine the hashed values.
Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded salt:

...
$hash = hash_pbkdf2('sha256', $password, '2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$', 100000)
...


This code will run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will have access to the salt. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the salt "2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$". An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 760
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.4.1 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.2 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.5 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.3 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.2 Algorithms (L2 L3), 8.3.7 Sensitive Private Data (L2 L3), 9.1.2 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.3 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 759
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.1 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.1 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.1 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.1 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.1 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.1 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II, APSC-DV-002290 CAT II
desc.structural.php.weak_cryptographic_hash_hardcoded_pbe_salt
Abstract
A hardcoded salt can compromise system security in a way that cannot be easily remedied.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode a salt. Not only does a hardcoded salt allow all of the project's developers to view the salt, it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, the salt cannot be easily changed. If attackers know the value of the salt, they can compute "rainbow tables" for the application and more easily determine the hashed values.
Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded salt:

...
from hashlib import pbkdf2_hmac
dk = pbkdf2_hmac('sha256', password, '2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$', 100000)
...


This code will run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will have access to the salt. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the salt "2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$". An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 760
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.4.1 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.2 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.5 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.3 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.2 Algorithms (L2 L3), 8.3.7 Sensitive Private Data (L2 L3), 9.1.2 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.3 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 759
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.1 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.1 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.1 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.1 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.1 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.1 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II, APSC-DV-002290 CAT II
desc.structural.python.weak_cryptographic_hash_hardcoded_pbe_salt
Abstract
A hardcoded salt can compromise system security in a way that cannot be easily remedied.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode a salt. Not only does a hardcoded salt allow all of the project's developers to view the salt, it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, the salt cannot be easily changed. If attackers know the value of the salt, they can compute "rainbow tables" for the application and more easily determine the hashed values.
Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded salt:

...
dk = OpenSSL::PKCS5.pbkdf2_hmac(password, '2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$', 100000, 256, digest)
...


This code will run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will have access to the salt. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the salt "2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$". An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 760
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.4.1 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.2 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.5 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.3 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.2 Algorithms (L2 L3), 8.3.7 Sensitive Private Data (L2 L3), 9.1.2 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.3 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 759
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.1 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.1 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.1 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.1 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.1 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.1 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II, APSC-DV-002290 CAT II
desc.structural.ruby.weak_cryptographic_hash_hardcoded_pbe_salt
Abstract
A hardcoded salt can compromise system security in a way that cannot be easily remedied.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode a salt. Not only does a hardcoded salt allow all of the project's developers to view the salt, it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, the salt cannot be easily changed. If attackers know the value of the salt, they can compute "rainbow tables" for the application and more easily determine the hashed values.
Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded salt:

...
let ITERATION = UInt32(100000)
let salt = "2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$"
...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(CCPBKDFAlgorithm(kCCPBKDF2),
password,
passwordLength,
salt,
salt.lengthOfBytesUsingEncoding(NSUTF8StringEncoding),
CCPseudoRandomAlgorithm(kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256),
ITERATION,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLength)
...


This code will run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will have access to the salt. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the salt "2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$". An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 760
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.4.1 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.2 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.5 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.3 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.2 Algorithms (L2 L3), 8.3.7 Sensitive Private Data (L2 L3), 9.1.2 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.3 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 759
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.1 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.1 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.1 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.1 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.1 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.1 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II, APSC-DV-002290 CAT II
desc.structural.swift.weak_cryptographic_hash_hardcoded_pbe_salt
Abstract
A hardcoded salt can compromise system security in a way that cannot be easily remedied.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode a salt. Not only does a hardcoded salt allow all of the project's developers to view the salt, it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, the salt cannot be easily changed. If attackers know the value of the salt, they can compute "rainbow tables" for the application and more easily determine the hashed values.
Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded salt:

...
crypt(password, "2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$");
...


This code will run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will have access to the salt. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the salt "2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$". An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 760
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.4.1 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.2 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.5 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.3 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.2 Algorithms (L2 L3), 8.3.7 Sensitive Private Data (L2 L3), 9.1.2 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.3 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 759
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.1 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.1 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.1 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.1 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.1 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.1 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
desc.semantic.cpp.weak_cryptographic_hash_hardcoded_salt
Abstract
A hardcoded salt can compromise system security in a way that cannot be easily remedied.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode a salt. Not only does a hardcoded salt allow all of the project's developers to view the salt, it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, you cannot easily change the salt. If attackers know the value of the salt, they can compute "rainbow tables" for the application and easily determine the hashed values.
Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded salt:

...
salt := "2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$"
password := get_password()
sha256.Sum256([]byte(salt + password)
...


This code runs successfully, but anyone who has access to it has access to the salt. After the program ships, there is no way to change the salt "2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$". An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 760
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.4.1 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.2 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.5 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.3 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.2 Algorithms (L2 L3), 8.3.7 Sensitive Private Data (L2 L3), 9.1.2 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.3 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 759
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.1 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.1 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.1 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.1 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.1 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.1 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
desc.structural.golang.weak_cryptographic_hash_hardcoded_salt
Abstract
A hardcoded salt can compromise system security in a way that cannot be easily remedied.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode a salt. Not only does a hardcoded salt allow all of the project's developers to view the salt, it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, the salt cannot be easily changed. If attackers know the value of the salt, they can compute "rainbow tables" for the application and more easily determine the hashed values.
Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded salt:

...
Encryptor instance = ESAPI.encryptor();
String hash1 = instance.hash(input, "2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$");
...


This code will run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will have access to the salt. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the salt "2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$". An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even worse, if attackers have access to the bytecode for the application they can use the javap -c command to access the disassembled code, which will contain the values of the used salt.
References
[1] MSC03-J. Never hard code sensitive information CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 760
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.4.1 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.2 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.5 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.3 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.2 Algorithms (L2 L3), 8.3.7 Sensitive Private Data (L2 L3), 9.1.2 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.3 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 759
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.1 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.1 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.1 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.1 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.1 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.1 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.1 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
desc.semantic.java.weak_cryptographic_hash_hardcoded_salt
Abstract
A hardcoded salt can compromise system security in a way that cannot be easily remedied.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode a salt. Not only does a hardcoded salt allow all of the project's developers to view the salt, it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, the salt cannot be easily changed. If attackers know the value of the salt, they can compute "rainbow tables" for the application and more easily determine the hashed values.
Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded salt:

...
crypt($password, '2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$');
...


This code will run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will have access to the salt. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the salt "2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$". An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 760
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.4.1 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.2 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.5 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.3 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.2 Algorithms (L2 L3), 8.3.7 Sensitive Private Data (L2 L3), 9.1.2 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.3 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 759
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.1 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.1 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.1 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.1 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.1 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.1 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
desc.semantic.php.weak_cryptographic_hash_hardcoded_salt
Abstract
A hardcoded salt can compromise system security in a way that cannot be easily remedied.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode a salt. Not only does a hardcoded salt allow all of the project's developers to view the salt, it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, the salt cannot be easily changed. If attackers know the value of the salt, they can compute "rainbow tables" for the application and more easily determine the hashed values.
Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded salt:

...
from django.contrib.auth.hashers import make_password
make_password(password, salt="2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$")
...


This code will run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will have access to the salt. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the salt "2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$". An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 760
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.4.1 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.2 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.5 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.3 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.2 Algorithms (L2 L3), 8.3.7 Sensitive Private Data (L2 L3), 9.1.2 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.3 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 759
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.1 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.1 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.1 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.1 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.1 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.1 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
desc.structural.python.weak_cryptographic_hash_hardcoded_salt
Abstract
A hardcoded salt can compromise system security in a way that cannot be easily remedied.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode a salt. Not only does a hardcoded salt allow all of the project's developers to view the salt, it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, the salt cannot be easily changed. If attackers know the value of the salt, they can compute "rainbow tables" for the application and more easily determine the hashed values.
Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded salt for password hashing:

require 'openssl'
...
password = get_password()
salt = '2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$'
hash = OpenSSL::Digest::SHA256.digest(salt + password)
...


This code will run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will have access to the salt. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the salt "2!@$(5#@532@%#$253l5#@$". An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 760
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.4.1 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.2 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.5 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.3 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.2 Algorithms (L2 L3), 8.3.7 Sensitive Private Data (L2 L3), 9.1.2 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.3 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 759
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.1 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.1 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.1 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.1 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.1 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.1 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
desc.structural.ruby.weak_cryptographic_hash_hardcoded_salt
Abstract
Using XML parsers that are not configured to prevent or limit document type definition (DTD) entity resolution can expose the parser to an XML Entity Expansion injection attack
Explanation
XML Entity Expansion injection attacks are DoS attacks that benefit from valid and well-formed XML blocks that expand exponentially until they exhaust the server allocated resources. XML allows to define custom entities which act as string substitution macros. By nesting recurrent entity resolutions, an attacker may easily crash the server resources.

The following XML document shows an example of an XML Bomb.

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE lolz [
<!ENTITY lol "lol">
<!ENTITY lol2 "&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;">
<!ENTITY lol3 "&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;">
<!ENTITY lol4 "&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;">
<!ENTITY lol5 "&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;">
<!ENTITY lol6 "&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;">
<!ENTITY lol7 "&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;">
<!ENTITY lol8 "&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;">
<!ENTITY lol9 "&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;">
]>
<lolz>&lol9;</lolz>


This test could crash the server by expanding the small XML document into more than 3GB in memory.
References
[1] XML Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses MSDN Magazine
[2] XML External Entity (XXE) Processing OWASP
[3] Testing for XML Injection OWASP
[4] XML External Entities The Web Application Security Consortium
desc.controlflow.dotnet.xml_entity_expansion_injection
Abstract
Using XML parsers that are not configured to prevent or limit Document Type Definition (DTD) entity resolution can expose the parser to an XML Entity Expansion injection
Explanation
XML Entity Expansion injection also known as XML Bombs are Denial Of Service (DoS) attacks that benefit from valid and well-formed XML blocks that expand exponentially until they exhaust the server allocated resources. XML allows to define custom entities which act as string substitution macros. By nesting recurrent entity resolutions, an attacker may easily crash the server resources.

The following XML document shows an example of an XML Bomb.

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE lolz [
<!ENTITY lol "lol">
<!ENTITY lol2 "&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;">
<!ENTITY lol3 "&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;">
<!ENTITY lol4 "&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;">
<!ENTITY lol5 "&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;">
<!ENTITY lol6 "&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;">
<!ENTITY lol7 "&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;">
<!ENTITY lol8 "&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;">
<!ENTITY lol9 "&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;">
]>
<lolz>&lol9;</lolz>


This test could crash the server by expanding the small XML document into more than 3GB in memory.
References
[1] XML External Entity (XXE) Processing OWASP
[2] Testing for XML Injection OWASP
[3] XML External Entities The Web Application Security Consortium
[4] INJECT-5: Restrict XML inclusion Oracle
desc.controlflow.java.xee_injection
Abstract
Using XML parsers that are not configured to prevent or limit Document Type Definition (DTD) entity resolution can expose the parser to an XML Entity Expansion injection
Explanation
XML Entity Expansion injection also known as XML Bombs are DoS attacks that benefit from valid and well-formed XML blocks that expand exponentially until they exhaust the server's allocated resources. XML allows you to define custom entities that act as string substitution macros. By nesting recurrent entity resolutions, an attacker might easily crash the server resources.

The following XML document shows an example of an XML Bomb.

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE lolz [
<!ENTITY lol "lol">
<!ENTITY lol2 "&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;">
<!ENTITY lol3 "&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;">
<!ENTITY lol4 "&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;">
<!ENTITY lol5 "&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;">
<!ENTITY lol6 "&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;">
<!ENTITY lol7 "&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;">
<!ENTITY lol8 "&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;">
<!ENTITY lol9 "&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;">
]>
<lolz>&lol9;</lolz>


This test can crash the server by expanding the small XML document into more than 3GB in memory.
References
[1] XML External Entity (XXE) Processing OWASP
[2] Testing for XML Injection OWASP
[3] XML External Entities The Web Application Security Consortium
desc.dataflow.php.xml_entity_expansion_injection
Abstract
Using XML parsers that are not configured to prevent or limit Document Type Definition (DTD) entity resolution can expose the parser to an XML Entity Expansion injection
Explanation
XML Entity Expansion injection also known as XML Bombs are DoS attacks that benefit from valid and well-formed XML blocks that expand exponentially until they exhaust the server allocated resources. XML allows to define custom entities which act as string substitution macros. By nesting recurrent entity resolutions, an attacker may easily crash the server resources.

The following XML document shows an example of an XML Bomb.

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE lolz [
<!ENTITY lol "lol">
<!ENTITY lol2 "&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;">
<!ENTITY lol3 "&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;">
<!ENTITY lol4 "&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;">
<!ENTITY lol5 "&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;">
<!ENTITY lol6 "&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;">
<!ENTITY lol7 "&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;">
<!ENTITY lol8 "&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;">
<!ENTITY lol9 "&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;">
]>
<lolz>&lol9;</lolz>


This test could crash the server by expanding the small XML document into more than 3GB in memory.
References
[1] XML vulnerabilities
[2] Announcing defusedxml, Fixes for XML Security Issues
[3] defusedxml
[4] defusedexpat
[5] XML External Entity (XXE) Processing OWASP
[6] Testing for XML Injection OWASP
[7] XML External Entities The Web Application Security Consortium
desc.dataflow.python.xee_injection
Abstract
Using XML parsers that are not configured to prevent or limit Document Type Definition (DTD) entity resolution can expose the parser to an XML Entity Expansion injection
Explanation
XML Entity Expansion injection also known as XML Bombs are DoS attacks that benefit from valid and well-formed XML blocks that expand exponentially until they exhaust the server allocated resources. XML allows to define custom entities which act as string substitution macros. By nesting recurrent entity resolutions, an attacker may easily crash the server resources.

The following XML document shows an example of an XML Bomb.

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE lolz [
<!ENTITY lol "lol">
<!ENTITY lol2 "&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;">
<!ENTITY lol3 "&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;">
<!ENTITY lol4 "&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;">
<!ENTITY lol5 "&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;&lol4;">
<!ENTITY lol6 "&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;&lol5;">
<!ENTITY lol7 "&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;&lol6;">
<!ENTITY lol8 "&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;&lol7;">
<!ENTITY lol9 "&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;&lol8;">
]>
<lolz>&lol9;</lolz>


This test could crash the server by expanding the small XML document into more than 3GB in memory.
References
[1] XML External Entity (XXE) Processing OWASP
[2] Testing for XML Injection OWASP
[3] XML External Entities The Web Application Security Consortium
desc.dataflow.ruby.xee_injection
Abstract
Processing an unvalidated XSL stylesheet can allow an attacker to change the structure and contents of the resultant XML, include arbitrary files from the file system, or execute arbitrary code.
Explanation
XSLT injection occurs when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.

2. The data is written to an XSL stylesheet.


Applications typically use XSL stylesheet to transform XML documents from one format to another. XSL stylesheets include special functions which enhance the transformation process but introduce additional vulnerabilities if used incorrectly.

The semantics of XSL stylesheets and processing can be altered if an attacker has the ability to write XSL elements in a stylesheet. An attacker could alter the output of a stylesheet such that an XSS (cross-site scripting) attack was enabled, expose the contents of local file system resources, or execute arbitrary code.

Example 1: Here is some code that is vulnerable to XSLT Injection:


...
String xmlUrl = Request["xmlurl"];
String xslUrl = Request["xslurl"];

XslCompiledTransform xslt = new XslCompiledTransform();
xslt.Load(xslUrl);

xslt.Transform(xmlUrl, "books.html");
...
Example 1 results in three different exploits when the attacker passes the identified XSL to the XSTL processor:

1. XSS:



<xsl:stylesheet version="1.0" xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform">
<xsl:template match="/">
<script>alert(123)</script>
</xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>



When the XSL stylesheet is processed, the <script> tag is rendered to the victim's browser allowing a cross-site scripting attack to be performed.

2. Reading of arbitrary files on the server's file system:



<xsl:stylesheet version="1.0" xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform">
<xsl:template match="/">
<xsl:copy-of select="document('file:///c:/winnt/win.ini')"/>
</xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>



The preceding XSL stylesheet will return the contents of the /etc/passwd file.

3. Execution of arbitrary code:

The XSLT processor has the ability to expose native language methods as XSLT functions if they are not disabled.



<xsl:stylesheet version="1.0" xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform" xmlns:msxsl="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:xslt" xmlns:App="http://www.tempuri.org/App">
<msxsl:script implements-prefix="App" language="C#">
<![CDATA[
public string ToShortDateString(string date)
{
System.Diagnostics.Process.Start("cmd.exe");
return "01/01/2001";
}
]]>
</msxsl:script>
<xsl:template match="ArrayOfTest">
<TABLE>
<xsl:for-each select="Test">
<TR>
<TD>
<xsl:value-of select="App:ToShortDateString(TestDate)" />
</TD>
</TR>
</xsl:for-each>
</TABLE>
</xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>



The preceding stylesheet will execute the "cmd.exe" command on the server.
desc.dataflow.dotnet.xslt_injection
Abstract
Processing an unvalidated XSL stylesheet can allow an attacker to change the structure and contents of the resultant XML, include arbitrary files from the file system, or execute arbitrary code.
Explanation
XSLT injection occurs when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.

2. The data is written to an XSL stylesheet.


Applications typically use XSL stylesheet to transform XML documents from one format to another. XSL stylesheets include special functions which enhance the transformation process but introduce additional vulnerabilities if used incorrectly.

The semantics of XSL stylesheets and processing can be altered if an attacker has the ability to write XSL elements in a stylesheet. An attacker could alter the output of a stylesheet such that an XSS (cross-site scripting) attack was enabled, expose the contents of local file system resources, or execute arbitrary code.

Example 1: Here is some code that is vulnerable to XSLT Injection:


...
InputStream xmlUrl = Utils.getFromURL(request.getParameter("xmlurl"));
InputStream xsltUrl = Utils.getFromURL(request.getParameter("xslurl"));

Source xmlSource = new StreamSource(xmlUrl);
Source xsltSource = new StreamSource(xsltUrl);
Result result = new StreamResult(System.out);

TransformerFactory transFact = TransformerFactory.newInstance();
Transformer trans = transFact.newTransformer(xsltSource);
trans.transform(xmlSource, result);
...


The code in Example 1 results in three different exploits when the attacker passes the identified XSL to the XSTL processor:

1. XSS:



<xsl:stylesheet version="1.0" xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform">
<xsl:template match="/">
<script>alert(123)</script>
</xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>



When the XSL stylesheet is processed, the <script> tag is rendered to the victim's browser allowing a cross-site scripting attack to be performed.

2. Reading of arbitrary files on the server's file system:



<xsl:stylesheet version="1.0" xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform">
<xsl:template match="/">
<xsl:copy-of select="document('/etc/passwd')"/>
</xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>



The preceding XSL stylesheet will return the contents of the /etc/passwd file.

3. Execution of arbitrary Java code:

The XSLT processor has the ability to expose native Java language methods as XSLT functions if they are not disabled.



<xsl:stylesheet version="1.0" xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform" xmlns:rt="http://xml.apache.org/xalan/java/java.lang.Runtime" xmlns:ob="http://xml.apache.org/xalan/java/java.lang.Object">
<xsl:template match="/">
<xsl:variable name="rtobject" select="rt:getRuntime()"/>
<xsl:variable name="process" select="rt:exec($rtobject,'ls')"/>
<xsl:variable name="processString" select="ob:toString($process)"/>
<xsl:value-of select="$processString"/>
</xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>



The preceding stylesheet will execute the "ls" command on the server.
References
[1] INJECT-8: Take care interpreting untrusted code Oracle
desc.dataflow.java.xslt_injection
Abstract
Processing an unvalidated XSL stylesheet can allow an attacker to change the structure and contents of the resultant XML, include arbitrary files from the file system, or execute arbitrary code.
Explanation
XSLT injection occurs when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.

2. The data is written to an XSL stylesheet.


Applications typically use XSL stylesheet to transform XML documents from one format to another. XSL stylesheets include special functions which enhance the transformation process but introduce additional vulnerabilities if used incorrectly.

The semantics of XSL stylesheets and processing can be altered if an attacker has the ability to write XSL elements in a stylesheet. An attacker could alter the output of a stylesheet such that an XSS (cross-site scripting) attack was enabled, expose the contents of local file system resources, or execute arbitrary code. If the attacker had complete control over the stylesheet submitted to the application, then the attacker could also execute an XXE (XML external entity) injection attack.

Example 1: Here is some code that is vulnerable to XSLT Injection:


...
<?php

$xml = new DOMDocument;
$xml->load('local.xml');

$xsl = new DOMDocument;
$xsl->load($_GET['key']);

$processor = new XSLTProcessor;
$processor->registerPHPFunctions();
$processor->importStyleSheet($xsl);

echo $processor->transformToXML($xml);

?>
...


The code in Example 1 results in three different exploits when the attacker passes the identified XSL to the XSTL processor:

1. XSS:



<xsl:stylesheet version="1.0" xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform" xmlns:php="http://php.net/xsl">
<xsl:template match="/">
<script>alert(123)</script>
</xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>



When the XSL stylesheet is processed, the <script> tag is rendered to the victim's browser allowing a cross-site scripting attack to be performed.

2. Reading of arbitrary files on the server's file system:



<xsl:stylesheet version="1.0" xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform" xmlns:php="http://php.net/xsl">
<xsl:template match="/">
<xsl:copy-of select="document('/etc/passwd')"/>
</xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>



The preceding XSL stylesheet will return the contents of the /etc/passwd file.

3. Execution of arbitrary PHP code:

The XSLT processor has the ability to expose native PHP language methods as XSLT functions by enabling "registerPHPFunctions".



<xsl:stylesheet version="1.0" xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform" xmlns:php="http://php.net/xsl">
<xsl:template match="/">
<xsl:value-of select="php:function('passthru','ls -la')"/>
</xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>



The preceding stylesheet will output the results of the "ls" command on the server.
desc.dataflow.php.xslt_injection
Abstract
Processing an unvalidated XSL stylesheet can allow an attacker to change the structure and contents of the resultant XML, include arbitrary files from the file system, or execute arbitrary code.
Explanation
XSLT injection occurs when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.

2. The data is written to an XSL stylesheet.


Applications typically use XSL stylesheet to transform XML documents from one format to another. XSL stylesheets include special functions which enhance the transformation process but introduce additional vulnerabilities if used incorrectly.

The semantics of XSL stylesheets and processing can be altered if an attacker has the ability to write XSL elements in a stylesheet. An attacker could alter the output of a stylesheet such that an XSS (cross-site scripting) attack was enabled, expose the contents of local file system resources, or execute arbitrary code.

Example 1: Here is some code that is vulnerable to XSLT Injection:


...
xml = StringIO.StringIO(request.POST['xml'])
xslt = StringIO.StringIO(request.POST['xslt'])

xslt_root = etree.XML(xslt)
transform = etree.XSLT(xslt_root)
result_tree = transform(xml)
return render_to_response(template_name, {'result': etree.tostring(result_tree)})
...


The code in Example 1 results in three different exploits when the attacker passes the identified XSL to the XSTL processor:

1. XSS:



<xsl:stylesheet version="1.0" xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform">
<xsl:template match="/">
<script>alert(123)</script>
</xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>



When the XSL stylesheet is processed, the <script> tag is rendered to the victim's browser allowing a cross-site scripting attack to be performed.

2. Reading of arbitrary files on the server's file system:



<xsl:stylesheet version="1.0" xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform">
<xsl:template match="/">
<xsl:copy-of select="document('/etc/passwd')"/>
</xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>



The preceding XSL stylesheet will return the contents of the /etc/passwd file.
desc.dataflow.python.xslt_injection
Abstract
Using Console.Out or Console.Error rather than a dedicated logging facility makes it difficult to monitor the program behavior.
Explanation
Example 1: The first .NET program that a developer learns to write is the following:


public class MyClass {
...
Console.WriteLine("hello world");
...
}


While most programmers go on to learn many nuances and subtleties about .NET, a surprising number hang on to this first lesson and never give up on writing messages to standard output using Console.WriteLine().

The problem is that writing directly to standard output or standard error is often used as an unstructured form of logging. Structured logging facilities provide features like logging levels, uniform formatting, a logger identifier, timestamps, and, perhaps most critically, the ability to direct the log messages to the right place. When the use of system output streams is jumbled together with the code that uses loggers properly, the result is often a well-kept log that is missing critical information.

Developers widely accept the need for structured logging, but many continue to use system output streams in their "pre-production" development. If the code you are reviewing is past the initial phases of development, use of Console.WriteLine may indicate an oversight in the move to a structured logging system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 398
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-11 Error Handling (P2)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-11 Error Handling
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A7 Improper Error Handling
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.2, Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3620 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3620 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3620 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3620 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3620 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3620 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3620 CAT II
desc.structural.dotnet.poor_logging_practice_use_of_a_system_output_stream
Abstract
Using os.Stdout or os.Stderr rather than a dedicated logging facility makes it difficult to monitor the program behavior.
Explanation
Example 1: Typically, the first Go program that a developer learns to write is the following:


...

func foo(){
fmt.Println("Hello World")
}


While most developers go on to learn many nuances and subtleties about Go, some never give up on writing messages to standard output using fmt.Println().

The problem is that writing directly to standard output or standard error is often used as an unstructured form of logging. Structured logging facilities provide features such as logging levels, uniform formatting, a logger identifier, timestamps, and the ability to direct log messages to a proper location. When the use of system output streams is jumbled together with code that uses loggers properly, the result is often a well-kept log that is missing critical information.

Structured logging is widely accepted but many developers continue to use system output streams in their "pre-production" development. If the code you are reviewing is past the initial phases of development, logging to os.Stdout or os.Stderr might indicate an oversight in the move to a structured logging system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 398
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-11 Error Handling (P2)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-11 Error Handling
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A7 Improper Error Handling
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.2, Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3620 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3620 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3620 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3620 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3620 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3620 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3620 CAT II
desc.semantic.golang.poor_logging_practice_use_of_a_system_output_stream
Abstract
Using System.out or System.err rather than a dedicated logging facility makes it difficult to monitor the program behavior.
Explanation
Example 1: The first Java program that a developer learns to write is the following:


public class MyClass
...
System.out.println("hello world");
...
}


While most programmers go on to learn many nuances and subtleties about Java, a surprising number hang on to this first lesson and never give up on writing messages to standard output using System.out.println().

The problem is that writing directly to standard output or standard error is often used as an unstructured form of logging. Structured logging facilities provide features like logging levels, uniform formatting, a logger identifier, timestamps, and, perhaps most critically, the ability to direct the log messages to the right place. When the use of system output streams is jumbled together with the code that uses loggers properly, the result is often a well-kept log that is missing critical information.

Developers widely accept the need for structured logging, but many continue to use system output streams in their "pre-production" development. If the code you are reviewing is past the initial phases of development, use of System.out or System.err may indicate an oversight in the move to a structured logging system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 398
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-11 Error Handling (P2)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-11 Error Handling
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A7 Improper Error Handling
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.2, Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3620 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3620 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3620 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3620 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3620 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3620 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3620 CAT II
desc.structural.java.poor_logging_practice_use_of_a_system_output_stream
Abstract
Using process.stdout or process.stderr rather than a dedicated logging facility makes it difficult to monitor the behavior of the program.
Explanation
Example 1: A simple program an early Node.js developer may write to read from stdin and write it back to stdout again may look like the following:


process.stdin.on('readable', function(){
var s = process.stdin.read();
if (s != null){
process.stdout.write(s);
}
});


While most programmers go on to learn many nuances and subtleties about JavaScript and Node.js in particular, many will hang on to this first lesson and never give up on writing messages to standard output using process.stdout.write().

The problem is that writing directly to standard output or standard error is often used as an unstructured form of logging. Structured logging facilities provide features like logging levels, uniform formatting, a logger identifier, timestamps, and, perhaps most critically, the ability to direct the log messages to the right place. When the use of system output streams is jumbled together with the code that uses loggers properly, the result is often a well-kept log that is missing critical information.

Developers widely accept the need for structured logging, but many continue to use system output streams in their "pre-production" development. If the code you are reviewing is past the initial phases of development, use of process.stdout or process.stderr may indicate an oversight in the move to a structured logging system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 398
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-11 Error Handling (P2)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-11 Error Handling
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A7 Improper Error Handling
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.2, Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3620 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3620 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3620 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3620 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3620 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3620 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3620 CAT II
desc.structural.javascript.poor_logging_practice_use_of_a_system_output_stream
Abstract
Using print or println rather than a dedicated logging facility makes it difficult to monitor the program behavior.
Explanation
Example 1: The first Kotlin program that a developer learns to write is the following:


class MyClass {
...
println("hello world")
...
}
}


While most programmers go on to learn many nuances and subtleties about Kotlin, a surprising number hang on to this first lesson and never give up on writing messages to standard output using print or println.

The problem is that writing directly to standard output or standard error is often used as an unstructured form of logging. Structured logging facilities provide features like logging levels, uniform formatting, a logger identifier, timestamps, and, perhaps most critically, the ability to direct the log messages to the right place. When the use of system output streams is jumbled together with the code that uses loggers properly, the result is often a well-kept log that is missing critical information.

Developers widely accept the need for structured logging, but many continue to use system output streams in their "pre-production" development. If the code you are reviewing is past the initial phases of development, use of the standard ouput or error stream may indicate an oversight in the move to a structured logging system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 398
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-11 Error Handling (P2)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-11 Error Handling
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A7 Improper Error Handling
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.2, Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3620 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3620 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3620 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3620 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3620 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3620 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3620 CAT II
desc.structural.kotlin.poor_logging_practice_use_of_a_system_output_stream
Abstract
Using standard output or standard error rather than a dedicated logging facility makes it difficult to monitor the behavior of the program.
Explanation
Example 1: The first Python program that a developer learns to write usually looks like this:


sys.stdout.write("hello world")


While most programmers go on to learn many nuances and subtleties about Python, a surprising number hang on to this first lesson and never give up on writing messages to standard output.

The problem is that writing directly to standard output or standard error is often used as an unstructured form of logging. Structured logging facilities provide features like logging levels, uniform formatting, a logger identifier, timestamps, and, perhaps most critically, the ability to direct the log messages to the right place. When the use of system output streams is jumbled together with the code that uses loggers properly, the result is often a well-kept log that is missing critical information.

Developers widely accept the need for structured logging, but many continue to use system output streams in their "pre-production" development. If the code you are reviewing is past the initial phases of development, use of sys.stdout or sys.stderr may indicate an oversight in the move to a structured logging system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 398
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-11 Error Handling (P2)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-11 Error Handling
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A7 Improper Error Handling
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.2, Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3620 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3620 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3620 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3620 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3620 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3620 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3620 CAT II
desc.structural.python.poor_logging_practice_use_of_a_system_output_stream
Abstract
Using Kernel.puts,Kernel.warn or Kernel.printf rather than a dedicated logging facility makes it difficult to monitor the behavior of the program.
Explanation
Example 1: The first Ruby program that a developer learns to write often will include functionality such as:


...
puts "hello world"
...


While most programmers go on to learn many nuances and subtleties about Ruby, a surprising number hang on to this first lesson and never give up on writing messages to standard output using Kernel.puts.

The problem is that writing directly to standard output or standard error is often used as an unstructured form of logging. Structured logging facilities provide features like logging levels, uniform formatting, a logger identifier, timestamps, and, perhaps most critically, the ability to direct the log messages to the right place. When the use of system output streams is jumbled together with the code that uses loggers properly, the result is often a well-kept log that is missing critical information.

Developers widely accept the need for structured logging, but many continue to use system output streams in their "pre-production" development. If the code you are reviewing is past the initial phases of development, use of Kernel.puts,Kernel.warn or Kernel.printf may indicate an oversight in the move to a structured logging system.
If there is a company policy not to use these APIs, this could still be worked around via the use of a logging system to then print the information to a system output stream.

Example 2: The following code uses the Logger class, but logs information to a system output stream:


require 'logger'
...
logger = Logger.new($stdout)
logger.info("hello world")
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 398
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-11 Error Handling (P2)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-11 Error Handling
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A7 Improper Error Handling
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.2, Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3620 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3620 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3620 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3620 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3620 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3620 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3620 CAT II
desc.structural.ruby.poor_logging_practice_use_of_a_system_output_stream
Abstract
The method writes unvalidated input into JSON. This call might allow an attacker to inject arbitrary elements or attributes into the JSON entity.
Explanation
JSON injection occurs when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.


2. The data is written to a JSON stream.

Applications typically use JSON to store data or send messages. When used to store data, JSON is often treated like cached data and may potentially contain sensitive information. When used to send messages, JSON is often used in conjunction with a RESTful service and can be used to transmit sensitive information such as authentication credentials.

The semantics of JSON documents and messages can be altered if an application constructs JSON from unvalidated input. In a relatively benign case, an attacker may be able to insert extraneous elements that cause an application to throw an exception while parsing a JSON document or request. In a more serious case, such as ones that involves JSON injection, an attacker may be able to insert extraneous elements that allow for the predictable manipulation of business critical values within a JSON document or request. In some cases, JSON injection can lead to cross-site scripting or dynamic code evaluation.

Example 1: The following C# code uses JSON.NET to serialize user account authentication information for non-privileged users (those with a role of "default" as opposed to privileged users with a role of "admin") from user-controlled input variables username and password to the JSON file located at C:\user_info.json:


...

StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
StringWriter sw = new StringWriter(sb);

using (JsonWriter writer = new JsonTextWriter(sw))
{
writer.Formatting = Formatting.Indented;

writer.WriteStartObject();

writer.WritePropertyName("role");
writer.WriteRawValue("\"default\"");

writer.WritePropertyName("username");
writer.WriteRawValue("\"" + username + "\"");

writer.WritePropertyName("password");
writer.WriteRawValue("\"" + password + "\"");

writer.WriteEndObject();
}

File.WriteAllText(@"C:\user_info.json", sb.ToString());


Yet, because the JSON serialization is performed using JsonWriter.WriteRawValue(), the untrusted data in username and password will not be validated to escape JSON-related special characters. This allows a user to arbitrarily insert JSON keys, possibly changing the structure of the serialized JSON. In this example, if the non-privileged user mallory with password Evil123! were to append ","role":"admin to her username when entering it at the prompt that sets the value of the username variable, the resulting JSON saved to C:\user_info.json would be:


{
"role":"default",
"username":"mallory",
"role":"admin",
"password":"Evil123!"
}


If this serialized JSON file were then deserialized to a Dictionary object with JsonConvert.DeserializeObject() as so:


String jsonString = File.ReadAllText(@"C:\user_info.json");

Dictionary<string, string> userInfo = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<Dictionary<string, strin>>(jsonString);


The resulting values for the username, password, and role keys in the Dictionary object would be mallory, Evil123!, and admin respectively. Without further verification that the deserialized JSON values are valid, the application will incorrectly assign user mallory "admin" privileges.
desc.dataflow.dotnet.json_injection
Abstract
The method writes unvalidated input to JSON. An attacker can inject arbitrary elements or attributes into the JSON entity.
Explanation
JSON injection occurs when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.


2. The data is written to a JSON stream.

Applications typically use JSON to store data or send messages. When used to store data, JSON is often treated like cached data and might contain sensitive information. When used to send messages, JSON is often used in conjunction with a RESTful service and can transmit sensitive information such as authentication credentials.

Attackers can alter the semantics of JSON documents and messages if an application constructs JSON from unvalidated input. In a relatively benign case, an attacker can insert extraneous elements that cause an application to throw an exception while parsing a JSON document or request. In more serious cases, such as those that involves JSON injection, an attacker can insert extraneous elements that allow for the predictable manipulation of business critical values within a JSON document or request. Sometimes JSON injection can lead to cross-site scripting or dynamic code evaluation.

Example 1: The following code serializes user account authentication information for non-privileged users (those with a role of "default" as opposed to privileged users with a role of "admin") from user-controlled input variables username and password to the JSON file located at ~/user_info.json:


...
func someHandler(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request){
r.parseForm()
username := r.FormValue("username")
password := r.FormValue("password")
...
jsonString := `{
"username":"` + username + `",
"role":"default"
"password":"` + password + `",
}`
...
f, err := os.Create("~/user_info.json")
defer f.Close()

jsonEncoder := json.NewEncoder(f)
jsonEncoder.Encode(jsonString)
}


Because the code performs the JSON serialization using string concatenation, the untrusted data in username and password is not validated to escape JSON-related special characters. This allows a user to arbitrarily insert JSON keys, which can possibly change the serialized JSON structure. In this example, if the non-privileged user mallory with password Evil123! appended ","role":"admin when she entered her username, the resulting JSON saved to ~/user_info.json would be:


{
"username":"mallory",
"role":"default",
"password":"Evil123!",
"role":"admin"
}

Without further verification that the deserialized JSON values are valid, the application unintentionally assigns user mallory "admin" privileges.
desc.dataflow.golang.json_injection
Abstract
The method writes unvalidated input into JSON. This call might allow an attacker to inject arbitrary elements or attributes into the JSON entity.
Explanation
JSON injection occurs when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.


2. The data is written to a JSON stream.

Applications typically use JSON to store data or send messages. When used to store data, JSON is often treated like cached data and may potentially contain sensitive information. When used to send messages, JSON is often used in conjunction with a RESTful service and can be used to transmit sensitive information such as authentication credentials.

The semantics of JSON documents and messages can be altered if an application constructs JSON from unvalidated input. In a relatively benign case, an attacker may be able to insert extraneous elements that cause an application to throw an exception while parsing a JSON document or request. In a more serious case, such as ones that involves JSON injection, an attacker may be able to insert extraneous elements that allow for the predictable manipulation of business critical values within a JSON document or request. In some cases, JSON injection can lead to cross-site scripting or dynamic code evaluation.

Example 1: The following Java code uses Jackson to serialize user account authentication information for non-privileged users (those with a role of "default" as opposed to privileged users with a role of "admin") from user-controlled input variables username and password to the JSON file located at ~/user_info.json:


...

JsonFactory jfactory = new JsonFactory();

JsonGenerator jGenerator = jfactory.createJsonGenerator(new File("~/user_info.json"), JsonEncoding.UTF8);

jGenerator.writeStartObject();

jGenerator.writeFieldName("username");
jGenerator.writeRawValue("\"" + username + "\"");

jGenerator.writeFieldName("password");
jGenerator.writeRawValue("\"" + password + "\"");

jGenerator.writeFieldName("role");
jGenerator.writeRawValue("\"default\"");

jGenerator.writeEndObject();

jGenerator.close();


Yet, because the JSON serialization is performed using JsonGenerator.writeRawValue(), the untrusted data in username and password will not be validated to escape JSON-related special characters. This allows a user to arbitrarily insert JSON keys, possibly changing the structure of the serialized JSON. In this example, if the non-privileged user mallory with password Evil123! were to append ","role":"admin to her username when entering it at the prompt that sets the value of the username variable, the resulting JSON saved to ~/user_info.json would be:


{
"username":"mallory",
"role":"admin",
"password":"Evil123!",
"role":"default"
}


If this serialized JSON file were then deserialized to an HashMap object with Jackson's JsonParser as so:


JsonParser jParser = jfactory.createJsonParser(new File("~/user_info.json"));

while (jParser.nextToken() != JsonToken.END_OBJECT) {

String fieldname = jParser.getCurrentName();

if ("username".equals(fieldname)) {
jParser.nextToken();
userInfo.put(fieldname, jParser.getText());
}

if ("password".equals(fieldname)) {
jParser.nextToken();
userInfo.put(fieldname, jParser.getText());
}

if ("role".equals(fieldname)) {
jParser.nextToken();
userInfo.put(fieldname, jParser.getText());
}

if (userInfo.size() == 3)
break;
}

jParser.close();


The resulting values for the username, password, and role keys in the HashMap object would be mallory, Evil123!, and admin respectively. Without further verification that the deserialized JSON values are valid, the application will incorrectly assign user mallory "admin" privileges.
desc.dataflow.java.json_injection
Abstract
The method writes unvalidated input into JSON. This call might allow an attacker to inject arbitrary elements or attributes into the JSON entity.
Explanation
JSON injection occurs when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.


2. The data is written to a JSON stream.

Applications typically use JSON to store data or send messages. When used to store data, JSON is often treated like cached data and may potentially contain sensitive information. When used to send messages, JSON is often used in conjunction with a RESTful service and can be used to transmit sensitive information such as authentication credentials.

The semantics of JSON documents and messages can be altered if an application constructs JSON from unvalidated input. In a relatively benign case, an attacker may be able to insert extraneous elements that cause an application to throw an exception while parsing a JSON document or request. In a more serious case, such as ones that involves JSON injection, an attacker may be able to insert extraneous elements that allow for the predictable manipulation of business critical values within a JSON document or request. In some cases, JSON injection can lead to cross-site scripting or dynamic code evaluation.

Example 1: The following JavaScript code uses jQuery to parse JSON where a value comes from a URL:


var str = document.URL;
var url_check = str.indexOf('name=');
var name = null;
if (url_check > -1) {
name = decodeURIComponent(str.substring((url_check+5), str.length));
}

$(document).ready(function(){
if (name !== null){
var obj = jQuery.parseJSON('{"role": "user", "name" : "' + name + '"}');
...
}
...
});


Here the untrusted data in name will not be validated to escape JSON-related special characters. This allows a user to arbitrarily insert JSON keys, possibly changing the structure of the serialized JSON. In this example, if the non-privileged user mallory were to append ","role":"admin to the name parameter in the URL, the JSON would become:


{
"role":"user",
"username":"mallory",
"role":"admin"
}


This is parsed by jQuery.parseJSON() and set to a plain object, meaning that obj.role would now return "admin" instead of "user"
desc.dataflow.javascript.json_injection
Abstract
The method writes unvalidated input into JSON. This call might allow an attacker to inject arbitrary elements or attributes into the JSON entity.
Explanation
JSON injection occurs when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.


2. The data is written to a JSON stream.

Applications typically use JSON to store data or send messages. When used to store data, JSON is often treated like cached data and may potentially contain sensitive information. When used to send messages, JSON is often used in conjunction with a RESTful service and can be used to transmit sensitive information such as authentication credentials.

The semantics of JSON documents and messages can be altered if an application constructs JSON from unvalidated input. In a relatively benign case, an attacker may be able to insert extraneous elements that cause an application to throw an exception while parsing a JSON document or request. In a more serious case, such as ones that involves JSON injection, an attacker may be able to insert extraneous elements that allow for the predictable manipulation of business critical values within a JSON document or request. In some cases, JSON injection can lead to cross-site scripting or dynamic code evaluation.

Example 1: The following Objective-C code serializes user account authentication information for non-privileged users (those with a role of "default" as opposed to privileged users with a role of "admin") to JSON from user-controllable fields _usernameField and _passwordField:


...

NSString * const jsonString = [NSString stringWithFormat: @"{\"username\":\"%@\",\"password\":\"%@\",\"role\":\"default\"}" _usernameField.text, _passwordField.text];


Yet, because the JSON serialization is performed using NSString.stringWithFormat:, the untrusted data in _usernameField and _passwordField will not be validated to escape JSON-related special characters. This allows a user to arbitrarily insert JSON keys, possibly changing the structure of the serialized JSON. In this example, if the non-privileged user mallory with password Evil123! were to append ","role":"admin to her username when entering it into the _usernameField field, the resulting JSON would be:


{
"username":"mallory",
"role":"admin",
"password":"Evil123!",
"role":"default"
}


If this serialized JSON string were then deserialized to an NSDictionary object with NSJSONSerialization.JSONObjectWithData: as so:


NSError *error;
NSDictionary *jsonData = [NSJSONSerialization JSONObjectWithData:[jsonString dataUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding] options:NSJSONReadingAllowFragments error:&error];


The resulting values for username, password, and role in the NSDictionary object would be mallory, Evil123!, and admin respectively. Without further verification that the deserialized JSON values are valid, the application will incorrectly assign user mallory "admin" privileges.
desc.dataflow.objc.json_injection
Abstract
The method writes unvalidated input into JSON. This call might allow an attacker to inject arbitrary elements or attributes into the JSON entity.
Explanation
JSON injection occurs when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.


2. The data is written to a JSON stream.

Applications typically use JSON to store data or send messages. When used to store data, JSON is often treated like cached data and may potentially contain sensitive information. When used to send messages, JSON is often used in conjunction with a RESTful service and can be used to transmit sensitive information such as authentication credentials.

The semantics of JSON documents and messages can be altered if an application constructs JSON from unvalidated input. In a relatively benign case, an attacker may be able to insert extraneous elements that cause an application to throw an exception while parsing a JSON document or request. In a more serious case, such as ones that involves JSON injection, an attacker may be able to insert extraneous elements that allow for the predictable manipulation of business critical values within a JSON document or request. In some cases, JSON injection can lead to cross-site scripting or dynamic code evaluation.

Example : The following python code update a json file with an untrusted value comes from a URL:


import json
import requests
from urllib.parse import urlparse
from urllib.parse import parse_qs

url = 'https://www.example.com/some_path?name=some_value'
parsed_url = urlparse(url)
untrusted_values = parse_qs(parsed_url.query)['name'][0]

with open('data.json', 'r') as json_File:
data = json.load(json_File)

data['name']= untrusted_values

with open('data.json', 'w') as json_File:
json.dump(data, json_File)

...


Here the untrusted data in name will not be validated to escape JSON-related special characters. This allows a user to arbitrarily insert JSON keys, possibly changing the structure of the serialized JSON. In this example, if the non-privileged user mallory were to append ","role":"admin to the name parameter in the URL, the JSON would become:


{
"role":"user",
"username":"mallory",
"role":"admin"
}

The JSON file is now tampered with malicious data and the user has a privileged access of "admin" instead of "user"
desc.dataflow.python.json_injection
Abstract
The method writes unvalidated input into JSON. This call might allow an attacker to inject arbitrary elements or attributes into the JSON entity.
Explanation
JSON injection occurs when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.


2. The data is written to a JSON stream.

Applications typically use JSON to store data or send messages. When used to store data, JSON is often treated like cached data and may potentially contain sensitive information. When used to send messages, JSON is often used in conjunction with a RESTful service and can be used to transmit sensitive information such as authentication credentials.

The semantics of JSON documents and messages can be altered if an application constructs JSON from unvalidated input. In a relatively benign case, an attacker may be able to insert extraneous elements that cause an application to throw an exception while parsing a JSON document or request. In a more serious case, such as ones that involves JSON injection, an attacker may be able to insert extraneous elements that allow for the predictable manipulation of business critical values within a JSON document or request. In some cases, JSON injection can lead to cross-site scripting or dynamic code evaluation.
desc.dataflow.scala.json_injection
Abstract
The method writes unvalidated input into JSON. This call might allow an attacker to inject arbitrary elements or attributes into the JSON entity.
Explanation
JSON injection occurs when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.


2. The data is written to a JSON stream.

Applications typically use JSON to store data or send messages. When used to store data, JSON is often treated like cached data and may potentially contain sensitive information. When used to send messages, JSON is often used in conjunction with a RESTful service and can be used to transmit sensitive information such as authentication credentials.

The semantics of JSON documents and messages can be altered if an application constructs JSON from unvalidated input. In a relatively benign case, an attacker may be able to insert extraneous elements that cause an application to throw an exception while parsing a JSON document or request. In a more serious case, such as ones that involves JSON injection, an attacker may be able to insert extraneous elements that allow for the predictable manipulation of business critical values within a JSON document or request. In some cases, JSON injection can lead to cross-site scripting or dynamic code evaluation.

Example 1: The following Swift code serializes user account authentication information for non-privileged users (those with a role of "default" as opposed to privileged users with a role of "admin") to JSON from user-controllable fields usernameField and passwordField:


...
let jsonString : String = "{\"username\":\"\(usernameField.text)\",\"password\":\"\(passwordField.text)\",\"role\":\"default\"}"


Yet, because the JSON serialization is performed using string interpolation, the untrusted data in usernameField and passwordField will not be validated to escape JSON-related special characters. This allows a user to arbitrarily insert JSON keys, possibly changing the structure of the serialized JSON. In this example, if the non-privileged user mallory with password Evil123! were to append ","role":"admin to her username when entering it into the usernameField field, the resulting JSON would be:


{
"username":"mallory",
"role":"admin",
"password":"Evil123!",
"role":"default"
}


If this serialized JSON string were then deserialized to an NSDictionary object with NSJSONSerialization.JSONObjectWithData: as so:


var error: NSError?
var jsonData : NSDictionary = NSJSONSerialization.JSONObjectWithData(jsonString.dataUsingEncoding(NSUTF8StringEncoding), options: NSJSONReadingOptions.MutableContainers, error: &error) as NSDictionary


The resulting values for username, password, and role in the NSDictionary object would be mallory, Evil123!, and admin respectively. Without further verification that the deserialized JSON values are valid, the application will incorrectly assign user mallory "admin" privileges.
desc.dataflow.swift.json_injection
Abstract
Server identity verification is disabled when making SSL connections.
Explanation
In some libraries that use SSL connections, the server certificate is not verified by default. This is equivalent to trusting all certificates. In other instances, this is can be explicitly disabled, whether by intention or not.

Example 1: This application always verifies that the certificate chain is correct, thereby trusting all certificates.


...
private bool CertificateCheck(object sender, X509Certificate certificate, X509Chain chain, SslPolicyErrors sslPolicyErrors)
{
...
return true;
}
...
HttpWebRequest webRequest = (HttpWebRequest) WebRequest.Create("https://www.myTrustedSite.com");
webRequest.ServerCertificateValidationCallback = CertificateCheck;
WebResponse response = webRequest.GetResponse();
...


When trying to connect to "https://www.myTrustedSite.com", this application would readily accept a certificate issued to "hackedserver.com". The application would now potentially leak sensitive user information on a broken SSL connection to the hacked server.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 297
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [25] CWE ID 295
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000185, CCI-001941, CCI-001942, CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM, SC
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A9 Insecure Communications
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A9 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.1 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M3 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M5 Insecure Communication
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-NETWORK-1, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.10
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.3.1.4, Requirement 6.5.9
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection (WASC-04)
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.structural.dotnet.insecure_ssl_server_identity_verification_disabled
Abstract
Server identity verification is disabled when making SSL connections.
Explanation
In some libraries that use SSL connections, it is possible to disable server certificate verification. This is equivalent to trusting all certificates.

Example 1: This application explicitly disables certificate verification:


...
SSL_CTX_set_verify(ctx, SSL_VERIFY_NONE, verify_callback);
...


When trying to connect to a valid host, this application would readily accept a certificate issued to "hackedserver.com". The application would now potentially leak sensitive user information on a broken SSL connection to the hacked server.
References
[1] P. Saint-Andre and J. Hodges RFC 6125: Representation and Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer Security (TLS) Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] OpenSSL Documentation SSL_CTX_set_verify, SSL_set_verify, SSL_CTX_set_verify_depth, SSL_set_verify_depth - set peer certificate verification parameters.
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 297
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [25] CWE ID 295
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000185, CCI-001941, CCI-001942, CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM, SC
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A9 Insecure Communications
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A9 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.1 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M3 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M5 Insecure Communication
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-NETWORK-1, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.10
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.3.1.4, Requirement 6.5.9
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection (WASC-04)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.semantic.cpp.insecure_ssl_server_identity_verification_disabled
Abstract
Server identity verification is disabled when making SSL connections.
Explanation
In some libraries that use SSL connections, the server certificate is not verified by default. This is equivalent to trusting all certificates.

Example 1: This application does not explicitly verify the server certificate.


...
config := &tls.Config{
// Set InsecureSkipVerify to skip the default validation
InsecureSkipVerify: true,
...
}

conn, err := tls.Dial("tcp", "example.com:443", conf)
..


When trying to connect to example.com, this application readily accepts any certificate issued by the server. This application can potentially leak sensitive user information on a broken SSL connection to the hacked server.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 297
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [25] CWE ID 295
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000185, CCI-001941, CCI-001942, CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM, SC
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A9 Insecure Communications
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A9 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.1 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M3 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M5 Insecure Communication
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-NETWORK-1, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.10
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.3.1.4, Requirement 6.5.9
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection (WASC-04)
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.semantic.golang.insecure_ssl_server_identity_verification_disabled
Abstract
Server identity verification is disabled when making SSL connections
Explanation
In some libraries that use SSL connections, the server certificate is not verified by default. This is equivalent to trusting all certificates.

Example 1: A Spring Boot application can explicitly disable server certificate verification for some modules:


spring.rabbitmq.ssl.validate-server-certificate=false


When trying to connect to the RabbitMQ queue, this application will accept a certificate issued for any host. The application can now potentially leak sensitive user information on a broken SSL connection to a hacked server.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 297
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [25] CWE ID 295
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000185, CCI-001941, CCI-001942, CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM, SC
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A9 Insecure Communications
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A9 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.1 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M3 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M5 Insecure Communication
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-NETWORK-1, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.10
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.3.1.4, Requirement 6.5.9
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection (WASC-04)
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.config.java.insecure_ssl_server_identity_verification_disabled
Abstract
Server identity verification is disabled when making SSL connections.
Explanation
In some libraries that use SSL connections, the server certificate is not verified by default. This is equivalent to trusting all certificates.

Example 1: This server incorrectly attempts to verify client connections:


...
var options = {
key : fs.readFileSync('my-server-key.pem'),
cert : fs.readFileSync('server-cert.pem'),
requestCert: true,
...
}
https.createServer(options);
...


When this https.Server object is created, the setting requestCert is specified to true, but rejectUnauthorized is not set, which defaults to false. This means that although the server was created with the intention of verifying clients over SSL, connections will still be accepted even if the certificate is not authorized with the list of supplied CAs.

Example 2: This application tries to connect to a server over SSL:


var tls = require('tls');
...
tls.connect({
host: 'https://www.hackersite.com',
port: '443',
...
rejectUnauthorized: false,
...
});


In this example, as rejectUnauthorized was set to false, it means that unauthorized certificates will be accepted, and a secure connection to the unidentified server will still be created. The application would now potentially leak sensitive user information on a broken SSL connection to the hacked server.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 297
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [25] CWE ID 295
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000185, CCI-001941, CCI-001942, CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM, SC
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A9 Insecure Communications
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A9 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.1 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M3 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M5 Insecure Communication
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-NETWORK-1, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.10
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.3.1.4, Requirement 6.5.9
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection (WASC-04)
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.structural.javascript.insecure_ssl_server_identity_verification_disabled
Abstract
Server identity verification is disabled when making SSL connections.
Explanation
In some libraries that involve SSL connections, the server certificate is not verified by default (or can be explicitly configured to do so). This is equivalent to trusting all certificates.

Example 1: This code configures NSURLConnectionDelegate to accept any HTTPS certificate:


implementation NSURLRequest (IgnoreSSL)

+ (BOOL)allowsAnyHTTPSCertificateForHost:(NSString *)host
{
return YES;
}

@end


When trying to connect to an SSL-secured server using the implementation of NSURLRequest from Example 1, no warnings or errors will result if the requested server's certificate is self-signed (and therefore unverified). As a result, the application would now potentially leak sensitive user information over the broken SSL connection.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 297
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [25] CWE ID 295
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000185, CCI-001941, CCI-001942, CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM, SC
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A9 Insecure Communications
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A9 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.1 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M3 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M5 Insecure Communication
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-NETWORK-1, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.10
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.3.1.4, Requirement 6.5.9
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection (WASC-04)
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.semantic.objc.insecure_ssl_server_identity_verification_disabled
Abstract
Server identity verification is disabled when making SSL connections.
Explanation
In some libraries that use SSL connections, it is possible to disable server certificate verification. This is equivalent to trusting all certificates.

Example 1: This application does not verify server certificate by default:


...
import ssl
ssl_sock = ssl.wrap_socket(s)
...


When trying to connect to a valid host, this application would readily accept a certificate issued to "hackedserver.com". The application would now potentially leak sensitive user information on a broken SSL connection to the hacked server.
References
[1] P. Saint-Andre and J. Hodges RFC 6125: Representation and Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer Security (TLS) Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] Python Software Foundation PEP 476 - Enabling certificate verification by default for stdlib http clients.
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 297
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [25] CWE ID 295
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000185, CCI-001941, CCI-001942, CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM, SC
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A9 Insecure Communications
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A9 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.1 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M3 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M5 Insecure Communication
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-NETWORK-1, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.10
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.3.1.4, Requirement 6.5.9
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection (WASC-04)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.structural.python.insecure_ssl_server_identity_verification_disabled
Abstract
Server identity verification is disabled when making SSL connections.
Explanation
In some libraries that use SSL connections, it is possible to disable server certificate verification. This is equivalent to trusting all certificates.

Example 1: This application explicitly disables certificate verification:


require 'openssl'
...
ctx = OpenSSL::SSL::SSLContext.new
ctx.verify_mode=OpenSSL::SSL::VERIFY_NONE
...


When trying to connect to a valid host, this application would readily accept a certificate issued to "hackedserver.com". The application would now potentially leak sensitive user information on a broken SSL connection to the hacked server.
References
[1] P. Saint-Andre and J. Hodges RFC 6125: Representation and Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer Security (TLS) Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] OpenSSL Documentation SSL_CTX_set_verify, SSL_set_verify, SSL_CTX_set_verify_depth, SSL_set_verify_depth - set peer certificate verification parameters.
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 297
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [25] CWE ID 295
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000185, CCI-001941, CCI-001942, CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM, SC
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A9 Insecure Communications
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A9 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.1 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M3 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M5 Insecure Communication
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-NETWORK-1, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.10
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.3.1.4, Requirement 6.5.9
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection (WASC-04)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.structural.ruby.insecure_ssl_server_identity_verification_disabled
Abstract
Server identity verification is disabled when making SSL connections.
Explanation
In some libraries that involve SSL connections, the server certificate is not verified by default (or can be explicitly configured to do so). This is equivalent to trusting all certificates.

Example 1: This code configures NSURLConnectionDelegate to accept any HTTPS certificate:


class Delegate: NSObject, NSURLConnectionDelegate {

...

func connection(connection: NSURLConnection, canAuthenticateAgainstProtectionSpace protectionSpace: NSURLProtectionSpace?) -> Bool {
return protectionSpace?.authenticationMethod == NSURLAuthenticationMethodServerTrust
}

func connection(connection: NSURLConnection, willSendRequestForAuthenticationChallenge challenge: NSURLAuthenticationChallenge) {
challenge.sender?.useCredential(NSURLCredential(forTrust: challenge.protectionSpace.serverTrust!), forAuthenticationChallenge: challenge)
challenge.sender?.continueWithoutCredentialForAuthenticationChallenge(challenge)
}
}


When trying to connect to an SSL-secured server using the implementation of NSURLConnectionDelegate from Example 1, no warnings or errors will result if the requested server's certificate is self-signed (and therefore unverified). As a result, the application would now potentially leak sensitive user information over the broken SSL connection.

Example 2: In an NSURLSession class, the SSL/TLS chain validation is handled by your app's authentication delegate method, but instead of providing credentials to authenticate the user (or your app) to the server, your app instead checks the credentials that the server provides during the SSL/TLS handshake, then tells the URL loading system whether it should accept or reject those credentials. The following code shows an NSURLSessionDelgate that just passes proposedCredential of the challenge received back as a credential for the session, effectively bypassing the server verification:


class MySessionDelegate : NSObject, NSURLSessionDelegate {
...
func URLSession(session: NSURLSession, didReceiveChallenge challenge: NSURLAuthenticationChallenge, completionHandler: (NSURLSessionAuthChallengeDisposition, NSURLCredential?) -> Void) {
...
completionHandler(NSURLSessionAuthChallengeDisposition.UseCredential, challenge.proposedCredential)
...
}
...
}
References
[1] HTTPS Server Trust Evaluation Apple
[2] Overriding TLS Chain Validation Correctly Apple
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 297
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [25] CWE ID 295
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000185, CCI-001941, CCI-001942, CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM, SC
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A9 Insecure Communications
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A9 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.1 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M3 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M5 Insecure Communication
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-NETWORK-1, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.10
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.3.1.4, Requirement 6.5.9
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection (WASC-04)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.structural.swift.insecure_ssl_server_identity_verification_disabled