135 items found
Weaknesses

Server-Side Template Injection

Abstract
User-controlled data is used as a template engine's template, allowing attackers to access the template context and in some cases inject and run arbitrary code on the application server.
Explanation
Template engines are used to render content using dynamic data. This context data is normally controlled by the user and formatted by the template to generate web pages, emails, and the like. Template engines allow powerful language expressions to be used in templates in order to render dynamic content, by processing the context data with code constructs such as conditionals, loops, etc. If an attacker is able to control the template to be rendered, they will be able to inject expressions that will expose context data or even run arbitrary commands on the server.

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

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

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

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

$name.getClass().forName("java.lang.Runtime").getRuntime().exec(<COMMAND>)
References
[1] Server-Side Template Injection: RCE for the modern webapp
desc.dataflow.java.server_side_template_injection
Abstract
User-controlled data is used as a template engine's template, which allows attackers to access the template context and in some cases inject and run arbitrary code on the application server.
Explanation
Template engines are used to render content using dynamic data. This context data is normally controlled by the user and formatted by the template to generate web pages, emails, and so on. Template engines allow powerful language expressions to be used in templates to render dynamic content, by processing the context data with code constructs such as conditionals, loops, etc. If an attacker can control the template to be rendered, they can inject expressions that expose context data or even run arbitrary commands on the server.

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

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

<% cp = process.mainModule.require('child_process');cp.exec(<COMMAND>); %>
References
[1] Server-Side Template Injection: RCE for the modern webapp
desc.dataflow.javascript.server_side_template_injection
Abstract
User-controlled data is used as a template engine's template, allowing attackers to access the template context and in some cases inject and run arbitrary code on the application server.
Explanation
Template engines are used to render content using dynamic data. This context data is normally controlled by the user and formatted by the template to generate web pages, emails, and the like. Template engines allow powerful language expressions to be used in templates in order to render dynamic content, by processing the context data with code constructs such as conditionals, loops, etc. If an attacker can control the template to be rendered, they can inject expressions that expose context data or even run arbitrary commands on the server.

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

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

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

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

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

def process_request(request):
    # Load the template
    template = source(request.GET['template'])
    t = Template(template)
    user = {"name": "John", "secret":getToken()}
    ctx = Context(locals())
    html = t.render(ctx)
    return HttpResponse(html)
Example 2 uses Django as the template engine. For that engine, an attacker will not be able to execute arbitrary commands, but they will be able to access all the objects in the template context. In this example, a secret token is available in the context and could be leaked by the attacker.
References
[1] Server-Side Template Injection: RCE for the modern webapp BlackHat
desc.dataflow.python.server_side_template_injection

Connection String Parameter Pollution

Abstract
Concatenating unvalidated input into a database connection may allow an attacker to override the value of a request parameter. An attacker may be able to override existing parameter values, inject a new parameter or exploit variables out of a direct reach.
Explanation
Connection String Parameter Pollution (CSPP) attacks consist of injecting connection string parameters into other existing parameters. This vulnerability is similar to vulnerabilities, and perhaps more well known, within HTTP environments where parameter pollution can also occur. However, it also can apply in other places such as database connection strings. If an application does not properly sanitize the user input, a malicious user may compromise the logic of the application to perform attacks from stealing credentials, to retrieving the entire database. By submitting additional parameters to an application, and if these parameters have the same name as an existing parameter, the database connection may react in one of the following ways:

It may only take the data from the first parameter
It may take the data from the last parameter
It may take the data from all parameters and concatenate them together

This may be dependent on the driver used, the database type, or even how APIs are used.

Example 1: The following code uses input from an HTTP request to connect to a database:


      ...
      string password = Request.Form["db_pass"]; //gets POST parameter 'db_pass'
      SqlConnection DBconn = new SqlConnection("Data Source = myDataSource; Initial Catalog = db; User ID = myUsername; Password = " + password + ";");
      ...


In this example, the programmer has not considered that an attacker could provide a db_pass parameter such as:
"xxx; Integrated Security = true" then connection string becomes:

"Data Source = myDataSource; Initial Catalog = db; User ID = myUsername; Password = xxx; Integrated Security = true; "

This will make the application connect to the database using the operating system account under which the application is running to bypass normal authentication. This would mean the attacker could connect to the database without a valid password and perform queries against the database directly.
References
[1] Chema Alonso, Manuel Fernandez, Alejandro Martin and Antonio Guzmán Connection String Parameter Pollution Attacks
[2] Eric P. Maurice A New Threat To Web Applications: Connection String Parameter Pollution (CSPP)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.connection_string_parameter_pollution
Abstract
Concatenating unvalidated input into a database connection may allow an attacker to override the value of a request parameter. An attacker might be able to override existing parameter values, inject a new parameter, or exploit variables that are out of direct reach.
Explanation
Connection String Parameter Pollution (CSPP) attacks consist of injecting connection string parameters into other existing parameters. This vulnerability is similar to vulnerabilities, and perhaps more well known, within HTTP environments where parameter pollution can also occur. However, it also can apply in other places such as database connection strings. If an application does not properly sanitize the user input, a malicious user may compromise the logic of the application to perform attacks from stealing credentials, to retrieving the entire database. By submitting additional parameters that have the same name as an existing parameter to an application, the database might react in one of the following ways:

It might only take the data from the first parameter
It might take the data from the last parameter
It might take the data from all parameters and concatenate them together

This is dependent on the driver used, the database type, or even how APIs are used.


Example 1: The following code uses input from an HTTP request to connect to a database:


    ...
    password := request.FormValue("db_pass")
    db, err := sql.Open("mysql", "user:" + password + "@/dbname")
    ...


In this example, the programmer has not considered that an attacker could provide a db_pass parameter such as:
"xxx@/attackerdb?foo=" then connection string becomes:

"user:xxx@/attackerdb?foo=/dbname"

This will make the application connect to an attacker controller database enabling him to control which data is return to the application.
References
[1] Chema Alonso, Manuel Fernandez, Alejandro Martin and Antonio Guzmán Connection String Parameter Pollution Attacks
desc.dataflow.golang.connection_string_parameter_pollution
Abstract
Concatenating unvalidated input into a database connection may allow an attacker to override the value of a request parameter. An attacker may be able to override existing parameter values, inject a new parameter, or exploit variables that are out of direct reach.
Explanation
Connection String Parameter Pollution (CSPP) attacks consist of injecting connection string parameters into other existing parameters. This vulnerability is similar to vulnerabilities, and perhaps more well known, within HTTP environments where parameter pollution can also occur. However, it also can apply in other places such as database connection strings. If an application does not properly sanitize the user input, a malicious user may compromise the logic of the application to perform attacks from stealing credentials, to retrieving the entire database. By submitting additional parameters to an application, and if these parameters have the same name as an existing parameter, the database connection may react in one of the following ways:

It may only take the data from the first parameter
It may take the data from the last parameter
It may take the data from all parameters and concatenate them together

This may be dependent on the driver used, the database type, or even how APIs are used.

Example 1: The following code uses input from an HTTP request to connect to a database:


username = req.field('username')
password = req.field('password')
...
client = MongoClient('mongodb://%s:%s@aMongoDBInstance.com/?ssl=true' % (username, password))
...


In this example, the programmer has not considered that an attacker could provide a password parameter such as:
"myPassword@aMongoDBInstance.com/?ssl=false&" then the connection string becomes (assuming a username "scott"):

"mongodb://scott:myPassword@aMongoDBInstance.com/?ssl=false&@aMongoDBInstance.com/?ssl=true"

This will cause "@aMongoDBInstance.com/?ssl=true" to be treated as an additional invalid argument, effectively ignoring "ssl=true" and connecting to the database with no encryption.
References
[1] Chema Alonso, Manuel Fernandez, Alejandro Martin and Antonio Guzmán Connection String Parameter Pollution Attacks
desc.dataflow.python.connection_string_parameter_pollution
Abstract
Concatenating unvalidated input into a database connection can allow an attacker to override the value of a request parameter. An attacker may be able to override existing parameter values, inject a new parameter or exploit variables out of a direct reach.
Explanation
Connection String Parameter Pollution (CSPP) attacks consist of injecting connection string parameters into other existing parameters. This vulnerability is similar to vulnerabilities, and perhaps more well known, within HTTP environments where parameter pollution can also occur. However, it also can apply in other places such as database connection strings. If an application does not properly sanitize the user input, a malicious user may compromise the logic of the application to perform attacks from stealing credentials, to retrieving the entire database. By submitting additional parameters to an application, and if these parameters have the same name as an existing parameter, the database connection may react in one of the following ways:

It may only take the data from the first parameter
It may take the data from the last parameter
It may take the data from all parameters and concatenate them together

This may be dependent on the driver used, the database type, or even how APIs are used.

Example 1: The following code uses input from an HTTP request to connect to a database:


hostname = req.params['host'] #gets POST parameter 'host'
...
conn = PG::Connection.new("connect_timeout=20 dbname=app_development user=#{user} password=#{password} host=#{hostname}")
...


In this example, the programmer has not considered that an attacker could provide a host parameter such as:
"myevilsite.com%20port%3D4444%20sslmode%3Ddisable" then connection string becomes (assuming a username "scott" and password "5up3RS3kR3t"):

"dbname=app_development user=scott password=5up3RS3kR3t host=myevilsite.com port=4444 sslmode=disable"

This will perform a lookup for "myevilsite.com" and connect to this on port 4444, disabling SSL. This would mean the attacker could steal the credentials of the user "scott" and then use this to either perform a man-in-the-middle attack between their machine and the real database, or just login to the real database and perform queries against the database directly.
References
[1] Chema Alonso, Manuel Fernandez, Alejandro Martin and Antonio Guzmán Connection String Parameter Pollution Attacks
[2] Eric P. Maurice A New Threat To Web Applications: Connection String Parameter Pollution (CSPP)
desc.dataflow.ruby.connection_string_parameter_pollution

File Permission Manipulation

Abstract
Allowing user input to directly alter file permissions might enable an attacker to access otherwise protected system resources.
Explanation
File permission manipulation errors occur when any of the following conditions are met:

1. An attacker might specify a path used in an operation that modifies permissions on the file system.

2. An attacker might specify the permissions assigned by an operation on the file system.

Example 1: The following code uses input from system environment variables to set file permissions. If attackers can alter the system environment variables, they might use the program to gain access to files manipulated by the program. If the program is also vulnerable to path manipulation, an attacker might use this vulnerability to access arbitrary files on system.


    permissions := strconv.Atoi(os.Getenv("filePermissions"));
    fMode := os.FileMode(permissions)
    os.chmod(filePath, fMode);
    ...
desc.dataflow.golang.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing user input to directly alter file permissions may enable an attacker to access otherwise protected system resources.
Explanation
File permission manipulation errors occur when any of the following conditions are met:

1. An attacker is able to specify a path used in an operation that modifies permissions on the file system.

2. An attacker is able to specify the permissions assigned by an operation on the file system.

Example 1: The following code uses input from system properties to set the default permission mask. If attackers can alter the system properties, they may use the program to gain access to files manipulated by the program. If the program is also vulnerable to path manipulation, an attacker may use this vulnerability to access arbitrary files on system.


  String permissionMask = System.getProperty("defaultFileMask");
  Path filePath = userFile.toPath();
  ...
  Set<PosixFilePermission> perms = PosixFilePermissions.fromString(permissionMask);
  Files.setPosixFilePermissions(filePath, perms);
...
References
[1] FIO01-J. Create files with appropriate access permissions CERT
desc.dataflow.java.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing user input to directly alter file permissions may enable an attacker to access otherwise protected system resources.
Explanation
File permission manipulation errors occur when any of the following conditions are met:

1. An attacker is able to specify a path used in an operation that modifies permissions on the file system.

2. An attacker is able to specify the permissions assigned by an operation on the file system.

Example: The following code is designed to set proper file permissions for users uploading Web pages through FTP. It uses input from an HTTP request to mark a file as viewable for external users.


	$rName = $_GET['publicReport'];
	chmod("/home/". authenticateUser . "/public_html/" . rName,"0755");
...


However, if an attacker provides a malicious value for publicReport, such as "../../localuser/public_html/.htpasswd", the application will make the specified file readable to the attacker.

Example 2: The following code uses input from a configuration file to set the default permission mask. If attackers can alter the configuration file, they can use the program to gain access to files manipulated by the program. If the program is also vulnerable to path manipulation, an attacker may use this vulnerability to access arbitrary files on system.


...
$mask = $CONFIG_TXT['perms'];
chmod($filename,$mask);
...
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
desc.dataflow.php.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing user input to directly alter file permissions may enable an attacker to access otherwise protected system resources.
Explanation
File permission manipulation errors occur when any of the following conditions are met:

1. An attacker is able to specify a path used in an operation that modifies permissions on the file system.

2. An attacker is able to specify the permissions assigned by an operation on the file system.

Example 1: The following code uses input from system environment variables to set file permissions. If attackers can alter the system environment variables, they may use the program to gain access to files manipulated by the program. If the program is also vulnerable to path manipulation, an attacker may use this vulnerability to access arbitrary files on system.


    permissions = os.getenv("filePermissions");
    os.chmod(filePath, permissions);
    ...
desc.dataflow.python.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing user input to directly alter file permissions may enable an attacker to access otherwise protected system resources.
Explanation
File permission manipulation errors occur when any of the following conditions are met:

1. An attacker is able to specify a path used in an operation that modifies permissions on the file system.

2. An attacker is able to specify the permissions assigned by an operation on the file system.

Example: The following code is designed to set proper file permissions for users uploading Web pages through FTP. It uses input from an HTTP request to mark a file as viewable for external users.


...
  rName = req['publicReport']
  File.chmod("/home/#{authenticatedUser}/public_html/#{rName}", "0755")
...


However, if an attacker provides a malicious value for publicReport, such as "../../localuser/public_html/.htpasswd", the application will make the specified file readable to the attacker.

Example 2: The following code uses input from a configuration file to set the default permission mask. If attackers can alter the configuration file, they may use the program to gain access to files manipulated by the program. If the program is also vulnerable to path manipulation, an attacker may use this vulnerability to access arbitrary files on system.


...
mask = config_params['perms']
File.chmod(filename, mask)
...
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
desc.dataflow.ruby.file_permission_manipulation

GraphQL Bad Practices: Introspection Enabled

Abstract
A GraphQL endpoint is created without disabling schema introspection.
Explanation
The GraphQL introspection capability enables anyone to query a GraphQL server for information about the current schema. An interested party can issue GraphQL introspection queries to retrieve a complete view of a schema's available operations, data types, fields, and documentation.

GraphQL introspection offers a significant utility in the context of developing and sharing information about GraphQL APIs. Introspection is a powerful GraphQL feature that can facilitate integration with various tools. For example, an IDE can leverage schema introspection to provide enhanced features for developing and testing GraphQL APIs.

However, allowing anyone to query your GraphQL schemas in production can pose a risk to your overall security posture. An attacker can use introspection to obtain implementation details from a GraphQL schema that enables them to perform a more targeted attack. GraphQL schemas can leak information such as internally used fields, descriptions, and deprecation notes that might not be intended for public consumption.

Example 1: The following code initializes a Hot Chocolate GraphQL endpoint with schema introspection enabled by default:

    services
        .AddGraphQLServer()
        .AddQueryType<Query>()
        .AddMutationType<Mutation>();
References
[1] OWASP OWASP Cheat Sheet Series: GraphQL Cheat Sheet
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 94
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3600 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3600 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.structural.dotnet.graphql_bad_practices_introspection_enabled
Abstract
A GraphQL endpoint is created without disabling schema introspection.
Explanation
The GraphQL introspection capability enables anyone to query a GraphQL server for information about the current schema. An interested party can issue GraphQL introspection queries to retrieve a complete view of a schema's available operations, data types, fields, and documentation.

GraphQL introspection offers a significant utility in the context of developing and sharing information about GraphQL APIs. Introspection is a powerful GraphQL feature that can facilitate integration with various tools. For example, an IDE can leverage schema introspection to provide enhanced features for developing and testing GraphQL APIs.

However, allowing anyone to query your GraphQL schemas in production can pose a risk to your overall security posture. An attacker can use introspection to obtain implementation details from a GraphQL schema that enables them to perform a more targeted attack. GraphQL schemas can leak information such as internally used fields, descriptions, and deprecation notes that might not be intended for public consumption.

Example 1: The following code initializes a GraphQL.js endpoint with schema introspection enabled by default:

app.use('/graphql', graphqlHTTP({
    schema
}));
References
[1] OWASP OWASP Cheat Sheet Series: GraphQL Cheat Sheet
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 94
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3600 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3600 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.dataflow.javascript.graphql_bad_practices_introspection_enabled
Abstract
A GraphQL endpoint is created without disabling schema introspection.
Explanation
The GraphQL introspection capability enables anyone to query a GraphQL server for information about the current schema. Any interested party can issue GraphQL introspection queries to retrieve a complete view of a schema's available operations, data types, fields, and documentation.

GraphQL introspection offers significant utility in the context of developing and sharing information about GraphQL APIs. Introspection is a powerful GraphQL feature that can facilitate integration with various tools. For example, an IDE can leverage schema introspection to provide enhanced features for developing and testing GraphQL APIs.

However, allowing anyone to query your GraphQL schemas in production can pose a risk to your overall security posture. An attacker can use introspection to obtain implementation details from a GraphQL schema that enables them to perform a more targeted attack. GraphQL schemas might leak information such as internally used fields, descriptions, and deprecation notes that are not intended for public consumption.

Example 1: The following code initializes a GraphQL endpoint with schema introspection enabled by default:

app.add_url_rule('/graphql', view_func=GraphQLView.as_view(
  'graphql',
  schema = schema
))
References
[1] OWASP OWASP Cheat Sheet Series: GraphQL Cheat Sheet
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 94
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3600 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3600 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.dataflow.python.graphql_bad_practices_introspection_enabled

Insecure Transport: Mail Transmission

Abstract
Establishing an unencrypted connection to a mail server allows an attacker to carry out a man-in-the-middle attack and read all the mail transmissions.
Explanation
Sensitive data sent over the wire unencrypted is subject to be read/modified by any attacker that can intercept the network traffic.

Example 1: The following SmtpClient is configured incorrectly, not using SSL/TLS to communicate with an SMTP server:


<mailSettings>
  <smtp deliveryMethod="network">
    <network host="smtp.acme.com" port="25" enableSsl="false"/>
  </smtp>
</mailSettings>
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[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 200
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000068, CCI-001453, CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422, CCI-002890, CCI-003123
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SC
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A9 Insecure Communications
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A9 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M3 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M5 Insecure Communication
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-NETWORK-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.3.1.4, Requirement 6.5.9
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] 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 - Use of Cryptography
[34] 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 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[35] 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 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 319
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260.1 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 4.4 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 4.5 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 4.6 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 4.7 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 4.8 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 4.9 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 4.10 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 4.11 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 5.1 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 5.2 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 5.3 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection (WASC-04)
desc.config.dotnet.insecure_transport_mail_transmission
Abstract
Establishing an unencrypted connection to a mail server allows an attacker to carry out a man-in-the-middle attack and read all the mail transmissions.
Explanation
Sensitive data sent over the wire unencrypted is subject to be read/modified by any attacker that can intercept the network traffic.

Example 1: The following Spring Mailer is configured incorrectly, not using SSL/TLS to communicate with an SMTP server:


<bean id="mailSender" class="org.springframework.mail.javamail.JavaMailSenderImpl">
    <property name="host" value="smtp.acme.com" />
    <property name="port" value="25" />
    <property name="javaMailProperties">
        <props>
            <prop key="mail.smtp.auth">true</prop>
        </props>
    </property>
</bean>
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[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 200
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000068, CCI-001453, CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422, CCI-002890, CCI-003123
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SC
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A9 Insecure Communications
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A9 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M3 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M5 Insecure Communication
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-NETWORK-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.3.1.4, Requirement 6.5.9
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] 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 - Use of Cryptography
[34] 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 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[35] 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 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 319
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260.1 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 4.4 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 4.5 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 4.6 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 4.7 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 4.8 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 4.9 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 4.10 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 4.11 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 5.1 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 5.2 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 5.3 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection (WASC-04)
desc.config.java.insecure_transport_mail_transmission
Abstract
Establishing an unencrypted connection to a mail server allows an attacker to carry out a man-in-the-middle attack and read all the mail transmissions.
Explanation
Sensitive data sent over the wire unencrypted is subject to be read/modified by any attacker that can intercept the network traffic.

Example 1: The following SMTP client is configured incorrectly, not using SSL/TLS to communicate with an SMTP server:


session = smtplib.SMTP(smtp_server, smtp_port)
session.ehlo()
session.login(username, password)
session.sendmail(frm, to, content)
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[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 200
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000068, CCI-001453, CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422, CCI-002890, CCI-003123
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SC
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A9 Insecure Communications
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A9 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M3 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M5 Insecure Communication
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-NETWORK-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.3.1.4, Requirement 6.5.9
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] 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 - Use of Cryptography
[34] 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 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[35] 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 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 319
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260.1 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 4.4 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 4.5 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 4.6 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 4.7 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 4.8 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 4.9 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 4.10 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 4.11 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 5.1 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 5.2 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, 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 5.3 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection (WASC-04)
desc.structural.python.insecure_transport_mail_transmission

NoSQL Injection: MongoDB

Abstract
Constructing a dynamic MongoDB query with input that comes from an untrusted source could allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning.
Explanation
NoSQL injection in MongoDB errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.



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

Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a MongoDB query that searches for an email with a specific ID.


...
    String userName = User.Identity.Name;
    String emailId = request["emailId"];
    var coll = mongoClient.GetDatabase("MyDB").GetCollection<BsonDocument>("emails");
    var docs = coll.Find(new BsonDocument("$where", "this.name == '" + name + "'")).ToList();
...


The query intends to execute the following code:


    this.owner == "<userName>" && this.emailId == "<emailId>"


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant query string and user input, the query only behaves correctly if emailId does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "123' || '4' != '5" for emailId, then the query becomes the following:


    this.owner == 'wiley' && this.emailId == '123' || '4' != '5'


The addition of the || '4' != '5' condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so the query returns all entries stored in the emails collection, regardless of the email owner.
References
[1] Testing for NoSQL injection OWASP
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89, CWE ID 943
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[67] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.dotnet.nosql_injection_mongodb
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic MongoDB query with input coming from an untrusted source could allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning.
Explanation
NoSQL injection in MongoDB errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.



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

Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a MongoDB query that searches for an email with a specific ID.


...
    String userName = ctx.getAuthenticatedUserName();
    String emailId = request.getParameter("emailId")
    MongoCollection<Document> col = mongoClient.getDatabase("MyDB").getCollection("emails");
    BasicDBObject Query = new BasicDBObject();
    Query.put("$where", "this.owner == \"" + userName + "\" && this.emailId == \"" + emailId + "\"");
    FindIterable<Document> find= col.find(Query);
...


The query intends to execute the following code:


    this.owner == "<userName>" && this.emailId == "<emailId>"


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if emailId does not contain a double-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string 123" || "4" != "5 for emailId, then the query becomes the following:


    this.owner == "wiley" && this.emailId == "123" || "4" != "5"


The addition of the || "4" != "5" condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so the query returns all entries stored in the emails collection, regardless of the email owner.
References
[1] Testing for NoSQL injection OWASP
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89, CWE ID 943
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[67] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.java.nosql_injection_mongodb
Abstract
Constructing a dynamic MongoDB query with input coming from an untrusted source could allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning.
Explanation
NoSQL injection in MongoDB errors occur when:

1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.



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

Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a MongoDB query that searches for an email with a specific ID.


...
    userName = req.field('userName')
    emailId = req.field('emaiId')
    results = db.emails.find({"$where", "this.owner == \"" + userName + "\" && this.emailId == \"" + emailId + "\""});
...


The query intends to execute the following code:


    this.owner == "<userName>" && this.emailId == "<emailId>"


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if emailId does not contain a double-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string 123" || "4" != "5 for emailId, then the query becomes the following:


    this.owner == "wiley" && this.emailId == "123" || "4" != "5"


The addition of the || "4" != "5" condition causes the where clause to always evaluate to true, so the query returns all entries stored in the emails collection, regardless of the email owner.
References
[1] Testing for NoSQL injection OWASP
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89, CWE ID 943
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[67] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.python.nosql_injection_mongodb

Often Misused: Privilege Management

Abstract
Failure to adhere to the principle of least privilege amplifies the risk posed by other vulnerabilities.
Explanation
Programs that run with root privileges have caused innumerable Unix security disasters. It is imperative that you carefully review privileged programs for all kinds of security problems, but it is equally important that privileged programs drop back to an unprivileged state as quickly as possible in order to limit the amount of damage that an overlooked vulnerability might be able to cause.


Privilege management functions can behave in some less-than-obvious ways, and they have different quirks on different platforms. These inconsistencies are particularly pronounced if you are transitioning from one non-root user to another.

Signal handlers and spawned processes run at the privilege of the owning process, so if a process is running as root when a signal fires or a sub-process is executed, the signal handler or sub-process will operate with root privileges. An attacker may be able to leverage these elevated privileges to do further damage.
References
[1] H. Chen, D. Wagner, and D. Dean. Setuid Demystified. 11th USENIX Security Symposium
[2] B. Chess and J. West, Secure Programming with Static Analysis. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley, 2007.
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 250
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-6 Least Privilege (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.2.1 Authentication Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.2 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[30] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 250
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 250
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II, APSC-DV-001795 CAT II, APSC-DV-002960 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.semantic.cpp.often_misused_privilege_management.setuid
Abstract
Failure to adhere to the principle of least privilege amplifies the risk posed by other vulnerabilities.
Explanation
Programs that run with root privileges have caused innumerable Unix security disasters. It is imperative that you carefully review privileged programs for all kinds of security problems, but it is equally important that privileged programs drop back to an unprivileged state as quickly as possible in order to limit the amount of damage that an overlooked vulnerability might cause.


Privilege management functions can behave in some less-than-obvious ways, and they have different quirks on different platforms. These inconsistencies are particularly pronounced if you are transitioning from one non-root user to another.

Signal handlers and spawned processes run at the privilege of the owning process, so if a process is running as root when a signal fires or a sub-process is executed, the signal handler or sub-process will operate with root privileges. An attacker might be able to leverage these elevated privileges to do further damage.
References
[1] H. Chen, D. Wagner, and D. Dean. Setuid Demystified. 11th USENIX Security Symposium
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 250
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-6 Least Privilege (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.2.1 Authentication Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.2 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[29] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 250
[30] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 250
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II, APSC-DV-001795 CAT II, APSC-DV-002960 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.semantic.golang.often_misused_privilege_management
Abstract
Failure to adhere to the principle of least privilege amplifies the risk posed by other vulnerabilities.
Explanation
Programs that run with root privileges have caused innumerable Unix security disasters. It is imperative that you carefully review privileged programs for all kinds of security problems, but it is equally important that privileged programs drop back to an unprivileged state as quickly as possible in order to limit the amount of damage that an overlooked vulnerability might be able to cause.


Privilege management functions can behave in some less-than-obvious ways, and they have different quirks on different platforms. These inconsistencies are particularly pronounced if you are transitioning from one non-root user to another.

Signal handlers and spawned processes run at the privilege of the owning process, so if a process is running as root when a signal fires or a sub-process is executed, the signal handler or sub-process will operate with root privileges. An attacker may be able to leverage these elevated privileges to do further damage.
References
[1] H. Chen, D. Wagner, and D. Dean. Setuid Demystified. 11th USENIX Security Symposium
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 250
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-6 Least Privilege (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.2.1 Authentication Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.2 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[29] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 250
[30] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 250
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II, APSC-DV-001795 CAT II, APSC-DV-002960 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.semantic.java.often_misused_privilege_management
Abstract
Failure to adhere to the principle of least privilege amplifies the risk posed by other vulnerabilities.
Explanation
Programs that run with root privileges have caused innumerable Unix security disasters. It is imperative that you carefully review privileged programs for all kinds of security problems, but it is equally important that privileged programs drop back to an unprivileged state as quickly as possible in order to limit the amount of damage that an overlooked vulnerability might be able to cause.


Privilege management functions can behave in some less-than-obvious ways, and they have different quirks on different platforms. These inconsistencies are particularly pronounced if you are transitioning from one non-root user to another.

Signal handlers and spawned processes run at the privilege of the owning process, so if a process is running as root when a signal fires or a sub-process is executed, the signal handler or sub-process will operate with root privileges. An attacker may be able to leverage these elevated privileges to do further damage.
References
[1] H. Chen, D. Wagner, and D. Dean. Setuid Demystified. 11th USENIX Security Symposium
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 250
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-6 Least Privilege (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.2.1 Authentication Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.2 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[29] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 250
[30] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 250
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II, APSC-DV-001795 CAT II, APSC-DV-002960 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.dataflow.python.often_misused_privilege_management