108 elementos encontrados
Debilidades
Abstract
La información de depuración ayuda a los atacantes a conocer el sistema y planificar una forma de ataque.
Explanation
Si está utilizando Blaze DS para llevar a cabo el registro de eventos inesperados, el archivo del descriptor services-config.xml especifica un elemento XML "Logging" (Registro) para describir los diferentes aspectos del registro. Tiene un formato similar al siguiente:

Ejemplo:

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


Esta etiqueta target toma un atributo opcional que se llama level, el cual indica el nivel de registro. Si el nivel de depuración se establece en un nivel demasiado detallado, su aplicación puede escribir datos confidenciales en el archivo de registro.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 11
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001312, CCI-001314, CCI-002420, CCI-003272
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools (P2), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1), SI-11 Error Handling (P2)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity, SI-11 Error Handling
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.config.java.flex_misconfiguration_debug_information
Abstract
Al permitir que un usuario malintencionado controle la cadena de formato de una función, se puede producir un buffer overflow.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de cadena de formato se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en la aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.



2. Los datos se transfieren como argumento de cadena de formato a una función, como sprintf(), FormatMessageW() o syslog().
Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código copia un argumento de línea de comandos en un búfer mediante snprintf().


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


Este código permite a un usuario malintencionado ver el contenido de la pila y escribir en esta mediante el argumento de línea de comandos que contiene una secuencia de directivas de formato. El atacante puede leer desde la pila proporcionando más directivas de formato como, por ejemplo, %x, que la función utiliza como argumentos a los que aplicar un formato. (En este ejemplo, la función no utiliza ningún argumento al que se le vaya aplicar un formato.) Mediante la directiva de formato %n, el usuario malintencionado puede escribir en la pila lo que provoca que snprintf() escriba la salida de un número de bytes hasta el momento en el argumento especificado (en lugar de leer un valor del argumento, que es el comportamiento previsto). Una versión sofisticada de este ataque utilizará cuatro operaciones de escritura escalonadas para controlar por completo el valor de un puntero en la pila.

Ejemplo 2: determinadas implementaciones realizan ataques más avanzados de forma más fácil al proporcionar directivas de formato que controlan la ubicación en la memoria para leer esta o escribir en ella. A continuación se muestra un ejemplo de estas directivas con el siguiente código, escrito para glibc:


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


Este código genera la siguiente salida:


5 9 5 5


También se pueden utilizan medias operaciones de escritura (%hn) para controlar elementos DWORDS arbitrarios en la memoria, lo que reduce considerablemente la complejidad necesaria para ejecutar un ataque que, de otro modo, requeriría cuatro operaciones de escritura escalonadas como la que se menciona en el Example 1.

Ejemplo 3: las vulnerabilidades de cadena de formato sencillo a menudo proceden de atajos aparentemente inofensivos. El uso de estos atajos está tan arraigado que es posible que los programadores ni siquiera se den cuenta de que la función que están utilizando espera un argumento de cadena de formato.

Por ejemplo, la función syslog() se usa a menudo de la siguiente forma:


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


Como el segundo parámetro en syslog() es una cadena de formato, todas las directivas de formato incluidas en cmdBuf se interpretan como se describe en el Example 1.

El siguiente código muestra un uso correcto de syslog():


...
syslog(LOG_ERR, "%s", cmdBuf);
...
References
[1] T. Newsham Format String Attacks Guardent, Inc.
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 134
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754, CCI-002824
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1), SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation, SI-16 Memory Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.4.2 Memory/String/Unmanaged Code Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 134
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Format String (WASC-06)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Format String Attack
desc.dataflow.cpp.format_string
Abstract
Un atacante puede controlar el argumento de cadena de formato que permite un ataque muy similar a un desbordamiento de búfer.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de cadena de formato se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en la aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.



2. Los datos se pasan como argumento de cadena de formato a una función como sprintf(), FormatMessageW(), syslog(), NSLog o NSString.stringWithFormatEjemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza un argumento de línea de comandos como una cadena de formato en NSString.stringWithFormat:.


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


Este código permite a un usuario malintencionado ver el contenido de la pila y dañarla mediante un argumento de línea de comandos que contenga una secuencia de directivas de formato. El atacante puede leer desde la pila proporcionando más directivas de formato como, por ejemplo, %x, que la función utiliza como argumentos a los que aplicar un formato. (En este ejemplo, la función no utiliza ningún argumento al que se le vaya aplicar un formato.)

Objective-C es compatible con las bibliotecas estándar de C heredadas, por lo que los ejemplos siguientes son aprovechables si la aplicación utiliza las API de C.

Ejemplo 2: determinadas implementaciones realizan ataques más avanzados de forma más fácil al proporcionar directivas de formato que controlan la ubicación en la memoria para leer esta o escribir en ella. A continuación se muestra un ejemplo de estas directivas con el siguiente código, escrito para glibc:


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


Este código genera la siguiente salida:


5 9 5 5


También se pueden utilizan medias operaciones de escritura (%hn) para controlar elementos DWORDS arbitrarios en la memoria, lo que reduce considerablemente la complejidad necesaria para ejecutar un ataque que, de otro modo, requeriría cuatro operaciones de escritura escalonadas como la que se menciona en el Example 1.

Ejemplo 3: las vulnerabilidades de cadena de formato sencillo a menudo proceden de atajos aparentemente inofensivos. El uso de estos atajos está tan arraigado que es posible que los programadores ni siquiera se den cuenta de que la función que están utilizando espera un argumento de cadena de formato.

Por ejemplo, la función syslog() se usa a menudo de la siguiente forma:


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


Como el segundo parámetro en syslog() es una cadena de formato, todas las directivas de formato incluidas en cmdBuf se interpretan como se describe en el Example 1.

El siguiente código muestra un uso correcto de syslog():


...
syslog(LOG_ERR, "%s", cmdBuf);
...
Ejemplo 4: las clases principales de Apple proporcionan vías interesantes para explotar las vulnerabilidades de la cadena de formato.

Por ejemplo, la función String.stringByAppendingFormat() se usa a menudo de la siguiente forma:


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


stringByAppendingFormat analiza los caracteres de la cadena de formato contenidos en la NSString pasados a ella.

El siguiente código muestra un uso correcto de stringByAppendingFormat():


...
NSString test = @"Sample Text.";
test = [test stringByAppendingFormat:@"%@", [MyClass
formatInput:inputControl.text]];
...
References
[1] T. Newsham Format String Attacks Guardent, Inc.
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 134
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754, CCI-002824
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1), SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation, SI-16 Memory Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.4.2 Memory/String/Unmanaged Code Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 134
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Format String (WASC-06)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Format String Attack
desc.dataflow.objc.format_string
Abstract
El programa usa una cadena de formato incorrecto que tiene un número de especificadores de conversión distinto del de los argumentos de la función. Las cadenas de formato incorrecto pueden hacer que el programa lea datos fuera de los límites de la memoria asignada, lo que puede dar acceso a información confidencial, introducir un comportamiento incorrecto o bloquear el programa.
Explanation
El buffer overflow es probablemente la forma más conocida de vulnerabilidad de seguridad de software. La mayoría de los desarrolladores de software saben lo que es una vulnerabilidad de buffer overflow, pero a menudo este tipo de ataques contra las aplicaciones existentes y desarrolladas recientemente son aún bastante habituales. Parte del problema se debe a la amplia variedad de formas en las que puede producirse un buffer overflow y otra parte se debe a las técnicas proclives a errores que a menudo se utilizan para evitarlas.

En un ataque de buffer overflow clásico, el usuario malintencionado envía datos a un programa, que los almacena en un búfer de pila demasiado pequeño. El resultado es que se sobrescribe la información de la pila de llamadas, incluido el puntero de devolución de la función. Los datos establecen el valor del puntero de devolución para que, cuando se devuelva la función, esta transfiera el control al código malicioso incluido en los datos del usuario malintencionado.

Aunque este tipo de buffer overflow de pila aún es frecuente en algunas plataformas y comunidades de desarrolladores, existen diversos tipos adicionales de buffer overflow, incluidos los desbordamientos del búfer de montón y los errores por uno ("off-by-one"), entre otros. Hay una serie de libros excelentes que ofrecen información detallada sobre cómo funcionan los ataques de buffer overflow, incluidos "Bilding Secure Software" [1], "Writing Secure Code" [2] y "The Shellcoder's Handbook" [3].

En el nivel de código, las vulnerabilidades de buffer overflow normalmente conllevan la infracción de las presuposiciones de un programador. Muchas funciones de manipulación de la memoria de C y C++ no realizan la comprobación de límites y pueden traspasar fácilmente los límites asignados de los búferes en los que operan. Incluso las funciones limitadas como, por ejemplo, strncpy(), pueden provocar vulnerabilidades cuando se utilizan incorrectamente. La combinación de manipulación de memoria y presuposiciones erróneas acerca del tamaño y la formación de una unidad de datos es el motivo principal de la mayoría de desbordamientos del búfer.

En este caso, una cadena de formato construida incorrectamente provoca que el programa pueda acceder a valores fuera de los límites de la memoria asignada.

Ejemplo: el siguiente lee valores arbitrarios desde la pila porque el número de especificadores de formato no se corresponde con el número de argumentos transferidos a la función.

void wrongNumberArgs(char *s, float f, int d) {
char buf[1024];
sprintf(buf, "Wrong number of %.512s");
}
References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[3] J. Koziol et al. The Shellcoder's Handbook: Discovering and Exploiting Security Holes John Wiley & Sons
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 126
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [1] CWE ID 119, [5] CWE ID 125
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [5] CWE ID 119, [4] CWE ID 125
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [3] CWE ID 125, [17] CWE ID 119
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [5] CWE ID 125, [19] CWE ID 119
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [7] CWE ID 125, [17] CWE ID 119
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002824
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-16 Memory Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 119
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Format String (WASC-06)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Format String Attack
desc.internal.cpp.format_string_argument_number_mismatch
Abstract
El programa usa una cadena de formato incorrecto con especificadores de conversión que no corresponden a los tipos de argumentos transferidos a la función. Las cadenas incorrectas pueden hacer que el programa convierta valores incorrectamente y que lea o escriba fuera de los límites de memoria asignada, lo que introduciría un comportamiento incorrecto o bloquearía el programa.
Explanation
El buffer overflow es probablemente la forma más conocida de vulnerabilidad de seguridad de software. La mayoría de los desarrolladores de software saben lo que es una vulnerabilidad de buffer overflow, pero a menudo este tipo de ataques contra las aplicaciones existentes y desarrolladas recientemente son aún bastante habituales. Parte del problema se debe a la amplia variedad de formas en las que puede producirse un buffer overflow y otra parte se debe a las técnicas proclives a errores que a menudo se utilizan para evitarlas.

En un ataque de buffer overflow clásico, el usuario malintencionado envía datos a un programa, que los almacena en un búfer de pila demasiado pequeño. El resultado es que se sobrescribe la información de la pila de llamadas, incluido el puntero de devolución de la función. Los datos establecen el valor del puntero de devolución para que, cuando se devuelva la función, esta transfiera el control al código malicioso incluido en los datos del usuario malintencionado.

Aunque este tipo de buffer overflow de pila aún es frecuente en algunas plataformas y comunidades de desarrolladores, existen diversos tipos adicionales de buffer overflow, incluidos los desbordamientos del búfer de montón y los errores por uno ("off-by-one"), entre otros. Hay una serie de libros excelentes que ofrecen información detallada sobre cómo funcionan los ataques de buffer overflow, incluidos "Bilding Secure Software" [1], "Writing Secure Code" [2] y "The Shellcoder's Handbook" [3].

En el nivel de código, las vulnerabilidades de buffer overflow normalmente conllevan la infracción de las presuposiciones de un programador. Muchas funciones de manipulación de la memoria de C y C++ no realizan la comprobación de límites y pueden traspasar fácilmente los límites asignados de los búferes en los que operan. Incluso las funciones limitadas como, por ejemplo, strncpy(), pueden provocar vulnerabilidades cuando se utilizan incorrectamente. La combinación de manipulación de memoria y presuposiciones erróneas acerca del tamaño y la formación de una unidad de datos es el motivo principal de la mayoría de desbordamientos del búfer.

En este caso, una cadena de formato construida incorrectamente provoca que el programa convierta incorrectamente valores de datos o que tenga acceso a valores fuera de los límites de la memoria asignada.

Ejemplo: el código siguiente convierte incorrectamente f desde un flotador usando un especificador de formato %d.


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

Ejemplo: Observe la siguiente etiqueta script.

<script src="http://www.example.com/js/fancyWidget.js"></script>


Si esta etiqueta aparece en otro sitio web distinto de www.example.com, este sitio dependerá de www.example.com para suministrar código válido y malintencionado. Si los atacantes consiguen comprometer www.example.com, podrán alterar el contenido de fancyWidget.js para trastornar la seguridad del sitio. Podrían, por ejemplo, añadir código a fancyWidget.js para robar los datos confidenciales de un usuario.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 494, CWE ID 829
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.3.9 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.6 File Execution Requirements (L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.4 Dependency (L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M7 Insufficient Binary Protections
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[15] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Process Validation (WASC-40)
[31] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Process Validation
desc.content.html.hardcoded_domain
Abstract
La concatenación de entradas sin validar en una dirección URL puede permitir a un usuario malintencionado anular el valor de un parámetro de solicitud. El usuario malintencionado puede anular los valores de los parámetros existentes, inyectar un nuevo parámetro o atacar las variables fuera de un alcance directo.
Explanation
Los ataques HPP (HTTP Parameter Pollution) consisten en inyectar delimitadores de cadenas de consulta codificados en otros parámetros existentes. Si una aplicación web no corrige adecuadamente la entrada del usuario, un usuario malintencionado puede poner en peligro la lógica de la aplicación para llevar a cabo ataques del lado de cliente o del servidor. Mediante el envío de parámetros adicionales a una aplicación web y si estos parámetros tienen el mismo nombre que un parámetro existente, la aplicación web puede reaccionar de una de las siguientes maneras:

Solo puede obtener los datos del primer parámetro
Puede obtener los datos del último parámetro
Puede obtener los datos de todos los parámetros y concatenarlos juntos


Por ejemplo:
- ASP.NET/IIS utiliza todas las apariciones de los parámetros
- Apache Tomcat utiliza solo la primera aparición e ignora las demás.
- mod_perl/Apache convierte el valor en una matriz de valores

Ejemplo 1: según el servidor de aplicaciones y la lógica de la propia aplicación, la siguiente solicitud podría provocar confusión en el sistema de autenticación y permitir que un atacante suplante a otro usuario.
http://www.server.com/login.aspx?name=alice&name=hacker

Ejemplo 2: el siguiente código utiliza la entrada de una solicitud HTTP para representar dos hipervínculos.

...
String lang = Request.Form["lang"];
WebClient client = new WebClient();
client.BaseAddress = url;
NameValueCollection myQueryStringCollection = new NameValueCollection();
myQueryStringCollection.Add("q", lang);
client.QueryString = myQueryStringCollection;
Stream data = client.OpenRead(url);
...


URL: http://www.host.com/election.aspx?poll_id=4567
Link1: <a href="http://www.host.com/vote.aspx?poll_id=4567&lang=en">inglés<a>
Link2: <a href="http://www.host.com/vote.aspx?poll_id=4567&lang=es">español<a>

El programador no ha tenido en cuenta la posibilidad de que un atacante proporcione un lang como en&poll_id=1 y después pueda modificar el poll_id a su antojo.
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[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 235
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
La concatenación de entradas sin validar en una dirección URL puede permitir a un usuario malintencionado anular el valor de un parámetro de solicitud. El usuario malintencionado puede anular los valores de los parámetros existentes, inyectar un nuevo parámetro o atacar las variables fuera de un alcance directo.
Explanation
Los ataques HPP (HTTP Parameter Pollution) consisten en inyectar delimitadores de cadenas de consulta codificados en otros parámetros existentes. Si una aplicación web no corrige adecuadamente la entrada del usuario, un usuario malintencionado puede poner en peligro la lógica de la aplicación para llevar a cabo ataques del lado de cliente o del servidor. Mediante el envío de parámetros adicionales a una aplicación web y si estos parámetros tienen el mismo nombre que un parámetro existente, la aplicación web puede reaccionar de una de las siguientes maneras:

Solo puede obtener los datos del primer parámetro
Puede obtener los datos del último parámetro
Puede obtener los datos de todos los parámetros y concatenarlos juntos


Por ejemplo:
- ASP.NET/IIS utiliza todas las apariciones de los parámetros
- Apache Tomcat utiliza solo la primera aparición e ignora las demás.
- mod_perl/Apache convierte el valor en una matriz de valores

Ejemplo 1: según el servidor de aplicaciones y la lógica de la propia aplicación, la siguiente solicitud podría provocar confusión en el sistema de autenticación y permitir que un atacante suplante a otro usuario.
http://www.example.com/login.php?name=alice&name=hacker

Ejemplo 2: el siguiente código utiliza la entrada de una solicitud HTTP para representar dos hipervínculos.

...
String lang = request.getParameter("lang");
GetMethod get = new GetMethod("http://www.example.com");
get.setQueryString("lang=" + lang + "&poll_id=" + poll_id);
get.execute();
...


URL: http://www.example.com?poll_id=4567
Link1: <a href="001">English<a>
Link2: <a href="002">Español<a>

El programador no ha tenido en cuenta la posibilidad de que un atacante proporcione un lang como en&poll_id=1 y después modifique poll_id a su antojo.
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[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 235
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
La concatenación de entradas sin validar en una dirección URL puede permitir a un usuario malintencionado anular el valor de un parámetro de solicitud. El usuario malintencionado puede anular los valores de los parámetros existentes, inyectar un nuevo parámetro o atacar las variables fuera de un alcance directo.
Explanation
Los ataques HPP (HTTP Parameter Pollution) consisten en inyectar delimitadores de cadenas de consulta codificados en otros parámetros existentes. Si una aplicación web no corrige adecuadamente la entrada del usuario, un usuario malintencionado puede poner en peligro la lógica de la aplicación para llevar a cabo ataques del lado de cliente o del servidor. Mediante el envío de parámetros adicionales a una aplicación web y si estos parámetros tienen el mismo nombre que un parámetro existente, la aplicación web puede reaccionar de una de las siguientes maneras:

Solo puede obtener los datos del primer parámetro
Puede obtener los datos del último parámetro
Puede obtener los datos de todos los parámetros y concatenarlos juntos


Por ejemplo:
- ASP.NET/IIS utiliza todas las apariciones de los parámetros
- Apache Tomcat utiliza solo la primera aparición e ignora las demás.
- mod_perl/Apache convierte el valor en una matriz de valores

Ejemplo 1: según el servidor de aplicaciones y la lógica de la propia aplicación, la siguiente solicitud podría provocar confusión en el sistema de autenticación y permitir que un atacante suplante a otro usuario.
http://www.server.com/login.php?name=alice&name=hacker

Ejemplo 2: el siguiente código utiliza la entrada de una solicitud HTTP para representar dos hipervínculos.


<%
...
$id = $_GET["id"];
header("Location: http://www.host.com/election.php?poll_id=" . $id);
...
%>


URL: http://www.host.com/election.php?poll_id=4567
Link1: <a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=white">Vote al Sr. Pérez<a>
Link2: <a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=green">Vote a la Sra. González<a>

El programador no ha pensado en la posibilidad de que un usuario malintencionado proporcione un identificador de voto (poll_id) como "4567&candidato=gonzález" y, entonces, la página resultante contenga los siguientes vínculos insertados y, por tanto, la Sra. González reciba los votos en un servidor de aplicaciones que recopile el primer parámetro.
<a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=green&candidate=white">Vote al Sr. Pérez<a>
<a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=green&candidate=green">Vote a la Sra. González<a>
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[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 235
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.php.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
La concatenación de entradas sin validar en una dirección URL puede permitir a un usuario malintencionado anular el valor de un parámetro de solicitud. El usuario malintencionado puede anular los valores de los parámetros existentes, inyectar un nuevo parámetro o atacar las variables fuera de un alcance directo.
Explanation
Los ataques HPP (HTTP Parameter Pollution) consisten en inyectar delimitadores de cadenas de consulta codificados en otros parámetros existentes. Si una aplicación web no corrige adecuadamente la entrada del usuario, un usuario malintencionado puede poner en peligro la lógica de la aplicación para llevar a cabo ataques del lado de cliente o del servidor. Mediante el envío de parámetros adicionales a una aplicación web y si estos parámetros tienen el mismo nombre que un parámetro existente, la aplicación web puede reaccionar de una de las siguientes maneras:

Solo puede obtener los datos del primer parámetro
Puede obtener los datos del último parámetro
Puede obtener los datos de todos los parámetros y concatenarlos juntos


Por ejemplo:
- ASP.NET/IIS utiliza todas las apariciones de los parámetros
- Apache Tomcat utiliza solo la primera aparición e ignora las demás.
- mod_perl/Apache convierte el valor en una matriz de valores

Ejemplo 1: según el servidor de aplicaciones y la lógica de la propia aplicación, la siguiente solicitud podría provocar confusión en el sistema de autenticación y permitir que un usuario malintencionado suplante a otro usuario.
http://www.server.com/login.php?name=alice&name=hacker

Como se muestra aquí, el usuario malintencionado ya ha especificado name=alice, pero ha agregado un name=alice& adicional, y si se utiliza en un servidor que tome la primera repetición, podría suplantar a alice para obtener más información sobre su cuenta.
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[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 235
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.ruby.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
La aplicación permite la instalación de extensiones de teclado de terceros.
Explanation
Se permite que las extensiones de teclado lean cada tecla que pulsa el usuario. Por lo general, los teclados de terceros se usan para facilitar la introducción de texto o para agregar emojis adicionales y pueden registrar lo que el usuario pulsa o incluso enviarlo a un servidor remoto para su procesamiento. Los teclados malintencionados también pueden distribuirse para actuar como un registrador de pulsaciones de teclas y leer todas las teclas pulsadas por el usuario para robar datos confidenciales como credenciales o números de tarjetas de crédito.
References
[1] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[2] UIApplicationDelegate Apple
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 522, CWE ID 829
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 522
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [21] CWE ID 522
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.3 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.9 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 12.3.6 File Execution Requirements (L2 L3), 14.2.4 Dependency (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-3
desc.structural.objc.input_interception_keyboard_extensions_allowed
Abstract
La aplicación permite la instalación de extensiones de teclado de terceros.
Explanation
Se permite que las extensiones de teclado lean cada tecla que pulsa el usuario. Por lo general, los teclados de terceros se usan para facilitar la introducción de texto o para agregar emojis adicionales y pueden registrar lo que el usuario pulsa o incluso enviarlo a un servidor remoto para su procesamiento. Los teclados malintencionados también pueden distribuirse para actuar como un registrador de pulsaciones de teclas y leer todas las teclas pulsadas por el usuario para robar datos confidenciales como credenciales o números de tarjetas de crédito.
References
[1] UIApplicationDelegate Apple
[2] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 522, CWE ID 829
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 522
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [21] CWE ID 522
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.3 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.9 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 12.3.6 File Execution Requirements (L2 L3), 14.2.4 Dependency (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-3
desc.structural.swift.input_interception_keyboard_extensions_allowed
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía nunca es una buena idea porque reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado y también dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado vacía:


...
encryptionKey = "".
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que la aplicación se haya distribuido, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.abap.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía nunca es una buena idea porque reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado y también dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado vacía:


...
var encryptionKey:String = "";
var key:ByteArray = Hex.toArray(Hex.fromString(encryptionKey));
...
var aes.ICipher = Crypto.getCipher("aes-cbc", key, padding);
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que la aplicación se haya distribuido, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.actionscript.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden comprometer la seguridad una forma difícil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave de cifrado vacía. El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía no solo reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado, sino que además dificulta enormemente la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si una cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo: El código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado vacía:


...
char encryptionKey[] = "";
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.cpp.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía nunca es una buena idea porque reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado y también dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado vacía:


...
<cfset encryptionKey = "" />
<cfset encryptedMsg = encrypt(msg, encryptionKey, 'AES', 'Hex') />
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que la aplicación se haya distribuido, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.cfml.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden comprometer la seguridad una forma difícil de resolver.
Explanation
El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía nunca es una idea acertada porque reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado y también dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino se encuentra en producción, se requiere una revisión de software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Si una cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deben elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado vacía:


...
key := []byte("");
block, err := aes.NewCipher(key)
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez distribuida la aplicación, se requiere una revisión de software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un usuario puede obtener indicios del uso de una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.golang.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía nunca es una buena idea porque reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado y también dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado vacía:


...
private static String encryptionKey = "";
byte[] keyBytes = encryptionKey.getBytes();
SecretKeySpec key = new SecretKeySpec(keyBytes, "AES");
Cipher encryptCipher = Cipher.getInstance("AES");
encryptCipher.init(Cipher.ENCRYPT_MODE, key);
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que la aplicación se haya distribuido, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía nunca es una buena idea porque reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado y también dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado vacía:


...
var crypto = require('crypto');
var encryptionKey = "";
var algorithm = 'aes-256-ctr';
var cipher = crypto.createCipher(algorithm, encryptionKey);
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que la aplicación se haya distribuido, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.javascript.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave de cifrado vacía. El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía no solo reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado, sino que además dificulta enormemente la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado vacía:


...
CCCrypt(kCCEncrypt,
kCCAlgorithmAES,
kCCOptionPKCS7Padding,
"",
0,
iv,
plaintext,
sizeof(plaintext),
ciphertext,
sizeof(ciphertext),
&numBytesEncrypted);
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que la aplicación se haya distribuido, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave de cifrado vacía. El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía no solo reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado, sino que además dificulta enormemente la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo: El siguiente código inicia una variable de clave de cifrado como una cadena vacía.

...
$encryption_key = '';

$filter = new Zend_Filter_Encrypt($encryption_key);

$filter->setVector('myIV');

$encrypted = $filter->filter('text_to_be_encrypted');
print $encrypted;
...

No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Windows Data Protection Microsoft
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.php.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía nunca es una buena idea porque reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado y también dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.



No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que la aplicación se haya distribuido, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.sql.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave de cifrado vacía. El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía no solo reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado, sino que además dificulta enormemente la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo: El siguiente código inicia una variable de clave de cifrado como una cadena vacía.

...
from Crypto.Ciphers import AES
cipher = AES.new("", AES.MODE_CFB, iv)
msg = iv + cipher.encrypt(b'Attack at dawn')
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.python.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave de cifrado vacía. El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía no solo reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado, sino que además dificulta enormemente la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente utiliza una función de derivación de claves basadas en contraseñas con una longitud de clave de cero, lo que produce una clave de cifrado vacía:


require 'openssl'
...
dk = OpenSSL::PKCS5::pbkdf2_hmac_sha1(password, salt, 100000, 0) # returns an empty string
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.ruby.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden comprometer la seguridad una forma difícil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave de cifrado vacía. El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía no solo reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado, sino que además dificulta enormemente la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado vacía:


...
CCCrypt(UInt32(kCCEncrypt),
UInt32(kCCAlgorithmAES128),
UInt32(kCCOptionPKCS7Padding),
"",
0,
iv,
plaintext,
plaintext.length,
ciphertext.mutableBytes,
ciphertext.length,
&numBytesEncrypted)
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía nunca es una buena idea porque reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado y también dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado vacía:


...
Dim encryptionKey As String
Set encryptionKey = ""
Dim AES As New System.Security.Cryptography.RijndaelManaged
On Error GoTo ErrorHandler
AES.Key = System.Text.Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(encryptionKey)
...
Exit Sub
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que la aplicación se haya distribuido, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.vb.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves HMAC vacías podrían comprometer la seguridad del sistema de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave HMAC vacía. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende del tamaño de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. El uso de una clave vacía debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función HMAC.
Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código utiliza una clave vacía para el cálculo de HMAC:

...
DATA: lo_hmac TYPE Ref To cl_abap_hmac,
Input_string type string.

CALL METHOD cl_abap_hmac=>get_instance
EXPORTING
if_algorithm = 'SHA3'
if_key = space
RECEIVING
ro_object = lo_hmac.

" update HMAC with input
lo_hmac->update( if_data = input_string ).

" finalise hmac
lo_digest->final( ).

...


Puede ser que el código mostrado en el Example 1 se ejecute correctamente, pero cualquiera con acceso a él puede darse cuenta de que utiliza una clave HMAC vacía. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC. Además, el código en el Example 1 es vulnerable a las falsificaciones y a los ataques de recuperación de claves.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.abap.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Las claves HMAC vacías podrían comprometer la seguridad del sistema de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave HMAC vacía. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende del tamaño de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. El uso de una clave vacía debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función HMAC.
Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código utiliza una clave vacía para el cálculo de HMAC:

...
using (HMAC hmac = HMAC.Create("HMACSHA512"))
{
string hmacKey = "";
byte[] keyBytes = Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(hmacKey);
hmac.Key = keyBytes;
...
}
...


Puede ser que el código del Example 1 se ejecute correctamente, pero cualquiera con acceso a él puede darse cuenta de que utiliza una clave HMAC vacía. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC. Además, el código en el Example 1 es vulnerable a las falsificaciones y a los ataques de recuperación de claves.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.dotnet.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Las claves HMAC vacías podrían comprometer la seguridad del sistema de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca use una clave HMAC vacía. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende del tamaño de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. El uso de una clave vacía debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función HMAC.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código utiliza una clave vacía para el cálculo de HMAC:


import "crypto/hmac"
...
hmac.New(md5.New, []byte(""))
...


Puede ser que el código del Example 1 se ejecute correctamente, pero cualquier persona con acceso a él puede determinar que utiliza una clave HMAC vacía. Una vez distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC. Además, el código en el Example 1 es vulnerable a las falsificaciones y a los ataques de recuperación de claves.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.golang.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Las claves HMAC vacías podrían comprometer la seguridad del sistema de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave HMAC vacía. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende del tamaño de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. El uso de una clave vacía debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función HMAC.
Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código utiliza una clave vacía para el cálculo de HMAC:

...
private static String hmacKey = "";
byte[] keyBytes = hmacKey.getBytes();
...
SecretKeySpec key = new SecretKeySpec(keyBytes, "SHA1");
Mac hmac = Mac.getInstance("HmacSHA1");
hmac.init(key);
...


Puede ser que el código del Example 1 se ejecute correctamente, pero cualquiera con acceso a él puede darse cuenta de que utiliza una clave HMAC vacía. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC. Además, el código en el Example 1 es vulnerable a las falsificaciones y a los ataques de recuperación de claves.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Las claves HMAC vacías podrían comprometer la seguridad del sistema de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave HMAC vacía. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende del tamaño de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. El uso de una clave vacía debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función HMAC.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código utiliza una clave vacía para el cálculo de HMAC:


...
CCHmac(kCCHmacAlgSHA256, "", 0, plaintext, plaintextLen, &output);
...


Puede ser que el código del Example 1 se ejecute correctamente, pero cualquiera con acceso a él puede darse cuenta de que utiliza una clave HMAC vacía. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC. Además, el código en el Example 1 es vulnerable a las falsificaciones y a los ataques de recuperación de claves.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Las claves HMAC vacías podrían comprometer la seguridad del sistema de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave HMAC vacía. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende del tamaño de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. El uso de una clave vacía debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función HMAC.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código utiliza una clave vacía para el cálculo de HMAC:


import hmac
...
mac = hmac.new("", plaintext).hexdigest()
...


Puede ser que el código del Example 1 se ejecute correctamente, pero cualquiera con acceso a él puede darse cuenta de que utiliza una clave HMAC vacía. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC. Además, el código en el Example 1 es vulnerable a las falsificaciones y a los ataques de recuperación de claves.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.python.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Las claves HMAC vacías podrían comprometer la seguridad del sistema de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave HMAC vacía. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende del tamaño de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. El uso de una clave vacía debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función HMAC.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código utiliza una clave vacía para el cálculo de HMAC:

...
digest = OpenSSL::HMAC.digest('sha256', '', data)
...


Puede ser que el código del Example 1 se ejecute correctamente, pero cualquiera con acceso a él puede darse cuenta de que utiliza una clave HMAC vacía. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC. Además, el código en el Example 1 es vulnerable a las falsificaciones y a los ataques de recuperación de claves.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.ruby.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Las claves HMAC vacías podrían comprometer la seguridad del sistema de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave HMAC vacía. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende del tamaño de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. El uso de una clave vacía debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función HMAC.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código utiliza una clave vacía para el cálculo de HMAC:


...
CCHmac(UInt32(kCCHmacAlgSHA256), "", 0, plaintext, plaintextLen, &output)
...


Puede ser que el código del Example 1 se ejecute correctamente, pero cualquiera con acceso a él puede darse cuenta de que utiliza una clave HMAC vacía. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC. Además, el código en el Example 1 es vulnerable a las falsificaciones y a los ataques de recuperación de claves.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
El uso de una clave generada por una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseña a la que se pasó un valor vacío para su argumento de contraseña podría comprometer la seguridad del sistema de una forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea pasar un valor vacío como argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas criptográfica (PBKDF). En este caso, la clave derivada se basará exclusivamente en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, a menudo la contraseña vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa la cadena vacía como el argumento de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


...
Rfc2898DeriveBytes rdb = new Rfc2898DeriveBytes("", salt,100000);
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que genere una o varias claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá obtener acceso a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves dañinas. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso al valor de sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña vacía, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez lanzado el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.dotnet.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
Se utiliza una contraseña vacía para generar una clave a partir de una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas (PBKDF). El establecimiento de contraseñas vacías a una PBKDF compromete la seguridad del sistema de una forma difícil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea pasar un valor vacío como argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas criptográfica (PBKDF). En este caso, la clave derivada se basará exclusivamente en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, a menudo la contraseña vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa la cadena vacía como el argumento de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


...
var encryptor = new StrongPasswordEncryptor();
var encryptedPassword = encryptor.encryptPassword("");
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que genere una o varias claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá obtener acceso a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves dañinas. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso al valor de sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña vacía, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez lanzado el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
Se utiliza una contraseña vacía para generar una clave a partir de una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas (PBKDF). El establecimiento de contraseñas vacías a una PBKDF compromete la seguridad del sistema de una forma difícil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea pasar un valor vacío como argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas criptográfica (PBKDF). En este caso, la clave derivada se basará exclusivamente en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, a menudo la contraseña vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa la cadena vacía como el argumento de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(kCCPBKDF2,
"",
0,
salt,
saltLen
kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256,
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen);
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que genere una o varias claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá obtener acceso a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves dañinas. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso al valor de sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña vacía, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez lanzado el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña vacía.

Ejemplo 2: Algunas API de nivel inferior pueden requerir pasar la longitud de determinados argumentos, además de los valores de los argumentos, de manera que una función pueda leer el valor del argumento como un número de bytes consecutivos, empezando por la ubicación del argumento en la memoria. El siguiente código pasa a cero como el argumento de longitud de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(kCCPBKDF2,
password,
0,
salt,
saltLen
kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256,
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen);
...


En este caso, incluso si password contiene un valor de contraseña seguro y administrado adecuadamente, al pasar su longitud como cero se obtendrá un valor de contraseña vacío, null o con alguna otra debilidad inesperada.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
Se utiliza una contraseña vacía para generar una clave a partir de una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas (PBKDF). El establecimiento de contraseñas vacías a una PBKDF compromete la seguridad del sistema de una forma difícil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea pasar un valor vacío como argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas criptográfica (PBKDF). En este caso, la clave derivada se basará exclusivamente en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, a menudo la contraseña vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa la cadena vacía como el argumento de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


...
$zip = new ZipArchive();
$zip->open("test.zip", ZipArchive::CREATE);
$zip->setEncryptionIndex(0, ZipArchive::EM_AES_256, "");
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código puede determinar que genera una o más claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña vacío. Además, cualquiera que tenga incluso técnicas básicas de descifrado podría obtener acceso con éxito a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves infractoras. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso al valor de sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña vacía, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez lanzado el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.php.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
Se utiliza una contraseña vacía para generar una clave a partir de una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas (PBKDF). El establecimiento de contraseñas vacías a una PBKDF compromete la seguridad del sistema de una forma difícil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea pasar un valor vacío como argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas criptográfica (PBKDF). En este caso, la clave derivada se basará exclusivamente en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, a menudo la contraseña vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa la cadena vacía como el argumento de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


from hashlib import pbkdf2_hmac
...
dk = pbkdf2_hmac('sha256', '', salt, 100000)
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que genere una o varias claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá obtener acceso a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves dañinas. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso al valor de sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña vacía, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez lanzado el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.python.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
Se utiliza una contraseña vacía para generar una clave a partir de una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas (PBKDF). El establecimiento de contraseñas vacías a una PBKDF compromete la seguridad del sistema de una forma difícil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea pasar un valor vacío como argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas criptográfica (PBKDF). En este caso, la clave derivada se basará exclusivamente en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, a menudo la contraseña vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa la cadena vacía como el argumento de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


...
key = OpenSSL::PKCS5::pbkdf2_hmac('', salt, 100000, 256, 'SHA256')
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que genere una o varias claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá obtener acceso a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves dañinas. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso al valor de sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña vacía, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez lanzado el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.ruby.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
Se utiliza una contraseña vacía para generar una clave a partir de una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas (PBKDF). El establecimiento de contraseñas vacías a una PBKDF compromete la seguridad del sistema de una forma difícil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea pasar un valor vacío como argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas criptográfica (PBKDF). En este caso, la clave derivada se basará exclusivamente en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, a menudo la contraseña vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa la cadena vacía como el argumento de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(CCPBKDFAlgorithm(kCCPBKDF2),
"",
0,
salt,
saltLen,
CCPseudoRandomAlgorithm(kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256),
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen)
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que genere una o varias claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá obtener acceso a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves dañinas. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso al valor de sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña vacía, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez lanzado el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña vacía.

Ejemplo 2: Algunas API de nivel inferior pueden requerir pasar la longitud de determinados argumentos, además de los valores de los argumentos, de manera que una función pueda leer el valor del argumento como un número de bytes consecutivos, empezando por la ubicación del argumento en la memoria. El siguiente código pasa a cero como el argumento de longitud de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(CCPBKDFAlgorithm(kCCPBKDF2),
password,
0,
salt,
saltLen,
CCPseudoRandomAlgorithm(kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256),
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen)
...


En este caso, incluso si password contiene un valor de contraseña seguro y administrado adecuadamente, al pasar su longitud como cero se obtendrá un valor de contraseña vacío, null o con alguna otra debilidad inesperada.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado nunca es una buena idea porque permite que todos los desarrolladores del proyecto puedan ver la clave de cifrado y dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl".
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código, tendrá acceso también a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se ha enviado la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado, a menos que se aplique una revisión al programa. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación podrían extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.abap.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado nunca es una buena idea porque permite que todos los desarrolladores del proyecto puedan ver la clave de cifrado y dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
var encryptionKey:String = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
var key:ByteArray = Hex.toArray(Hex.fromString(encryptionKey));
...
var aes.ICipher = Crypto.getCipher("aes-cbc", key, padding);
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código, tendrá acceso también a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se ha enviado la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado, a menos que se aplique una revisión al programa. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación podrían extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.actionscript.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
Nunca codifique una clave de cifrado porque hace que la clave de cifrado sea visible para todos los desarrolladores del proyecto y que solucionar el problema sea extremadamente difícil. Para cambiar la clave de cifrado después de que el código esté en producción se necesita una revisión de software. Si la cuenta que protege la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, el propietario del sistema debe elegir entre seguridad y disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
Blob encKey = Blob.valueOf('YELLOW_SUBMARINE');
Blob encrypted = Crypto.encrypt('AES128', encKey, iv, input);
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código puede ver la clave de cifrado. Una vez distribuida la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado sin una revisión de software. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Cualquier atacante con acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación puede extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.apex.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado nunca es una buena idea porque permite que todos los desarrolladores del proyecto puedan ver la clave de cifrado y dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
using (SymmetricAlgorithm algorithm = SymmetricAlgorithm.Create("AES"))
{
string encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
byte[] keyBytes = Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(encryptionKey);
algorithm.Key = keyBytes;
...
}


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código, tendrá acceso también a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se ha enviado la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado, a menos que se aplique una revisión al programa. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación podrían extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.dotnet.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea aplicar codificación rígida a una clave de cifrado. La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado no solo permite que todos los desarrolladores de proyectos vean la clave de cifrado, sino que además dificulta la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
char encryptionKey[] = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código, tendrá acceso también a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían desensamblar el código, donde se encuentra el valor de la clave de cifrado utilizada.
References
[1] Windows Data Protection Microsoft
[2] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.cpp.hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado nunca es una buena idea porque permite que todos los desarrolladores del proyecto puedan ver la clave de cifrado y dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
<cfset encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl" />
<cfset encryptedMsg = encrypt(msg, encryptionKey, 'AES', 'Hex') />
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código, tendrá acceso también a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se ha enviado la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado, a menos que se aplique una revisión al programa. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación podrían extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.cfml.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado nunca es una buena idea, ya que permite que todos los desarrolladores del proyecto puedan ver la clave de cifrado y dificulta en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código se encuentra en producción, se requiere una revisión de software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
key := []byte("lakdsljkalkjlksd");
block, err := aes.NewCipher(key)
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código, tendrá acceso también a la clave de cifrado. Una vez distribuida la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado a menos que se aplique una revisión al programa. Un empleado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Al obtener acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, los atacantes pueden extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] MSC03-J. Never hard code sensitive information CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.golang.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado nunca es una buena idea porque permite que todos los desarrolladores del proyecto puedan ver la clave de cifrado y dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
private static final String encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
byte[] keyBytes = encryptionKey.getBytes();
SecretKeySpec key = new SecretKeySpec(keyBytes, "AES");
Cipher encryptCipher = Cipher.getInstance("AES");
encryptCipher.init(Cipher.ENCRYPT_MODE, key);
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código, tendrá acceso también a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se ha enviado la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado, a menos que se aplique una revisión al programa. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación podrían extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] MSC03-J. Never hard code sensitive information CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado nunca es una buena idea porque permite que todos los desarrolladores del proyecto puedan ver la clave de cifrado y dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
var crypto = require('crypto');
var encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
var algorithm = 'aes-256-ctr';
var cipher = crypto.createCipher(algorithm, encryptionKey);
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código, tendrá acceso también a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se ha enviado la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado, a menos que se aplique una revisión al programa. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación podrían extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.javascript.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las contraseñas codificadas pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad del sistema de una forma que es difícil resolver.
Explanation
Nunca codifique de forma rígida contraseñas. No solo expone la contraseña a todos los desarrolladores del proyecto, sino que también hace que sea extremadamente difícil solucionar el problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, seguramente se requiera una revisión del programa para cambiar la contraseña. Si la cuenta protegida por la contraseña se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.
Ejemplo: El JSON siguiente utiliza una contraseña con codificación rígida:


...
{
"username":"scott"
"password":"tiger"
}
...


Esta configuración puede ser válida, pero cualquiera que tenga acceso a la configuración lo tendrá también a la contraseña. Una vez que se ha lanzado el programa, cambiar la cuenta de usuario por defecto "scott" con una contraseña "tiger" es difícil. Cualquier persona con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.json.password_management_hardcoded_password
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado nunca es una buena idea porque permite que todos los desarrolladores del proyecto puedan ver la clave de cifrado y dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
NSString encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código, tendrá acceso también a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se ha enviado la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado, a menos que se aplique una revisión al programa. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación podrían extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado codificadas podrían comprometer la seguridad del sistema de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea aplicar codificación rígida a una clave de cifrado. La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado no solo permite que todos los desarrolladores de proyectos vean la clave de cifrado, sino que además dificulta la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.
Ejemplo: el siguiente código utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada para cifrar la información:


...
$encryption_key = 'hardcoded_encryption_key';

//$filter = new Zend_Filter_Encrypt('hardcoded_encryption_key');
$filter = new Zend_Filter_Encrypt($encryption_key);

$filter->setVector('myIV');

$encrypted = $filter->filter('text_to_be_encrypted');
print $encrypted;
...


Este código se ejecutará correctamente, pero cualquier usuario que tenga acceso al mismo tendrá acceso a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado codificada ('hardcoded_encryption_key'), a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer los datos cifrados por el sistema.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.php.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado nunca es una buena idea porque permite que todos los desarrolladores del proyecto puedan ver la clave de cifrado y dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.



Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código, tendrá acceso también a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se ha enviado la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado, a menos que se aplique una revisión al programa. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación podrían extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.sql.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado codificadas podrían comprometer la seguridad del sistema de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea aplicar codificación rígida a una clave de cifrado. La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado no solo permite que todos los desarrolladores de proyectos vean la clave de cifrado, sino que además dificulta la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.
Ejemplo: el siguiente código utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada para cifrar la información:

...
from Crypto.Ciphers import AES
encryption_key = b'_hardcoded__key_'
cipher = AES.new(encryption_key, AES.MODE_CFB, iv)
msg = iv + cipher.encrypt(b'Attack at dawn')
...


Este código se ejecutará correctamente, pero cualquier usuario que tenga acceso al mismo tendrá acceso a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado codificada _hardcoded__key_, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer los datos cifrados por el sistema.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.python.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado codificadas podrían comprometer la seguridad del sistema de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea aplicar codificación rígida a una clave de cifrado. La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado no solo permite que todos los desarrolladores de proyectos vean la clave de cifrado, sino que además dificulta la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.
Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


require 'openssl'
...
encryption_key = 'hardcoded_encryption_key'
...
cipher = OpenSSL::Cipher::AES.new(256, 'GCM')
cipher.encrypt
...
cipher.key=encryption_key
...


Este código se ejecutará correctamente, pero cualquier usuario que tenga acceso al mismo tendrá acceso a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado codificada "hardcoded_encryption_key", a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer los datos cifrados por el sistema.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.ruby.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden comprometer la seguridad de una forma que no se puede resolver fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea aplicar codificación rígida a una clave de cifrado. La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado no solo permite que todos los desarrolladores de proyectos vean la clave de cifrado, sino que además dificulta la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
let encryptionKey = "YELLOW_SUBMARINE"
...
Ejemplo 2: el código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
CCCrypt(UInt32(kCCEncrypt),
UInt32(kCCAlgorithmAES128),
UInt32(kCCOptionPKCS7Padding),
"YELLOW_SUBMARINE",
16,
iv,
plaintext,
plaintext.length,
ciphertext.mutableBytes,
ciphertext.length,
&numBytesEncrypted)
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código, tendrá acceso también a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación podrían extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
Nunca codifique una clave de cifrado porque hace que la clave de cifrado sea visible para todos los desarrolladores del proyecto y que solucionar el problema sea extremadamente difícil. Para cambiar la clave de cifrado después de que el código esté en producción se necesita una revisión de software. Si la cuenta que protege la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, el propietario del sistema debe elegir entre seguridad y disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente ejemplo muestra una clave de cifrado dentro de un archivo .pem:


...
-----BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY-----
MIICXwIBAAKBgQCtVacMo+w+TFOm0p8MlBWvwXtVRpF28V+o0RNPx5x/1TJTlKEl
...
DiJPJY2LNBQ7jS685mb6650JdvH8uQl6oeJ/aUmq63o2zOw=
-----END RSA PRIVATE KEY-----
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código puede ver la clave de cifrado. Una vez distribuida la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado a menos que se aplique una revisión al programa. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Cualquier atacante con acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación puede extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.regex.universal.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado nunca es una buena idea porque permite que todos los desarrolladores del proyecto puedan ver la clave de cifrado y dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
Dim encryptionKey As String
Set encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl"
Dim AES As New System.Security.Cryptography.RijndaelManaged
On Error GoTo ErrorHandler
AES.Key = System.Text.Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(encryptionKey)
...
Exit Sub
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código, tendrá acceso también a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se ha enviado la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado, a menos que se aplique una revisión al programa. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación podrían extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.vb.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
Nunca codifique una clave de cifrado porque hace que la clave de cifrado sea visible para todos los desarrolladores del proyecto y que solucionar el problema sea extremadamente difícil. Para cambiar la clave de cifrado después de que el código esté en producción se necesita una revisión de software. Si la cuenta que protege la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, el propietario del sistema debe elegir entre seguridad y disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente ejemplo muestra una clave de cifrado dentro del archivo secrets.yml de una configuración de Ruby on Rails:


...
production:
secret_key_base: 0ab25e26286c4fb9f7335947994d83f19861354f19702b7bbb84e85310b287ba3cdc348f1f19c8cdc08a7c6c5ad2c20ad31ecda177d2c74aa2d48ec4a346c40e
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código puede ver la clave de cifrado. Una vez distribuida la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado a menos que se aplique una revisión al programa. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Cualquier atacante con acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación puede extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.yaml.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves HMAC codificadas de forma rígida podrían comprometer la seguridad del sistema de una forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea codificar una clave HMAC. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende de la confidencialidad de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. La codificación de una clave HMAC permite que cualquiera con acceso al código fuente pueda verlo y debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función.
Ejemplo: el siguiente código utiliza una clave codificada para el cálculo de HMAC:

...
DATA: lo_hmac TYPE Ref To cl_abap_hmac,
Input_string type string.

CALL METHOD cl_abap_hmac=>get_instance
EXPORTING
if_algorithm = 'SHA3'
if_key = 'secret_key'
RECEIVING
ro_object = lo_hmac.

" update HMAC with input
lo_hmac->update( if_data = input_string ).

" finalise hmac
lo_digest->final( ).

...


Este código se ejecutará correctamente, pero cualquier usuario con acceso al mismo tendrá acceso a la clave HMAC. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC codificada "secret_key", a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.7.1, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.abap.key_management_hardcoded_hmac_key
Abstract
Las claves HMAC codificadas de forma rígida podrían comprometer la seguridad del sistema de una forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea codificar una clave HMAC. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende de la confidencialidad de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. La codificación de una clave HMAC permite que cualquiera con acceso al código fuente pueda verlo y debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función.
Ejemplo: El siguiente código utiliza una clave codificada para el cálculo de HMAC:

...
using (HMAC hmac = HMAC.Create("HMACSHA512"))
{
string hmacKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
byte[] keyBytes = Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(hmacKey);
hmac.Key = keyBytes;
...
}


Este código se ejecutará correctamente, pero cualquier usuario con acceso al mismo tendrá acceso a la clave HMAC. Una vez lanzado el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC codificada "hmacKey", a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.7.1, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.dotnet.key_management_hardcoded_hmac_key
Abstract
Las claves HMAC codificadas de forma rígida pueden comprometer la seguridad del sistema de una forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca codifique de forma rígida una clave HMAC. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende de la confidencialidad de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. La codificación de forma rígida de una clave HMAC permite que cualquier persona con acceso al origen pueda verlo y debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código utiliza una clave codificada de forma rígida para el cálculo de HMAC:


import "crypto/hmac"
...
hmac.New(sha256.New, []byte("secret"))
...


Este código se ejecuta correctamente, pero cualquier persona con acceso a él tiene acceso a la clave HMAC. Una vez distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC “secret” codificada de forma rígida, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.7.1, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.golang.key_management_hardcoded_hmac_key
Abstract
Las claves HMAC codificadas de forma rígida podrían comprometer la seguridad del sistema de una forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea codificar una clave HMAC. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende de la confidencialidad de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. La codificación de una clave HMAC permite que cualquiera con acceso al código fuente pueda verlo y debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función.
Ejemplo: el siguiente código utiliza una clave codificada para el cálculo de HMAC:

...
private static String hmacKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
byte[] keyBytes = hmacKey.getBytes();
...
SecretKeySpec key = new SecretKeySpec(keyBytes, "SHA1");
Mac hmac = Mac.getInstance("HmacSHA1");
hmac.init(key);
...


Este código se ejecutará correctamente, pero cualquier usuario con acceso al mismo tendrá acceso a la clave HMAC. Una vez lanzado el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC codificada "hmacKey", a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] MSC03-J. Never hard code sensitive information CERT
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[16] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[17] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[18] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.7.1, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[66] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.key_management_hardcoded_hmac_key
Abstract
Las claves HMAC codificadas de forma rígida podrían comprometer la seguridad del sistema de una forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea codificar una clave HMAC. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende de la confidencialidad de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. La codificación de una clave HMAC permite que cualquiera con acceso al código fuente pueda verlo y debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función.

Ejemplo: el siguiente código utiliza una clave codificada para el cálculo de HMAC:


...
CCHmac(kCCHmacAlgSHA256, "secret", 6, plaintext, plaintextLen, &output);
...


Este código se ejecutará correctamente, pero cualquier usuario con acceso al mismo tendrá acceso a la clave HMAC. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC codificada "secret", a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.7.1, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.key_management_hardcoded_hmac_key
Abstract
Las claves HMAC codificadas de forma rígida podrían comprometer la seguridad del sistema de una forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea codificar una clave HMAC. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende de la confidencialidad de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. La codificación de una clave HMAC permite que cualquiera con acceso al código fuente pueda verlo y debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código utiliza una clave codificada para el cálculo de HMAC:


import hmac
...
mac = hmac.new("secret", plaintext).hexdigest()
...


Este código se ejecutará correctamente, pero cualquier usuario con acceso al mismo tendrá acceso a la clave HMAC. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC codificada "secret", a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.7.1, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.python.key_management_hardcoded_hmac_key
Abstract
Las claves HMAC codificadas de forma rígida podrían comprometer la seguridad del sistema de una forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea codificar una clave HMAC. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende de la confidencialidad de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. La codificación de una clave HMAC permite que cualquiera con acceso al código fuente pueda verlo y debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función.
Ejemplo: el siguiente código utiliza una clave codificada para el cálculo de HMAC:

...
digest = OpenSSL::HMAC.digest('sha256', 'secret_key', data)
...


Este código se ejecutará correctamente, pero cualquier usuario con acceso al mismo tendrá acceso a la clave HMAC. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC codificada "secret_key", a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.7.1, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.ruby.key_management_hardcoded_hmac_key
Abstract
Las claves HMAC codificadas de forma rígida podrían comprometer la seguridad del sistema de una forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea codificar una clave HMAC. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende de la confidencialidad de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. La codificación de una clave HMAC permite que cualquiera con acceso al código fuente pueda verlo y debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función.

Ejemplo: El siguiente código utiliza una clave codificada para el cálculo de HMAC:


...
CCHmac(UInt32(kCCHmacAlgSHA256), "secret", 6, plaintext, plaintextLen, &output)
...


Este código se ejecutará correctamente, pero cualquier usuario con acceso al mismo tendrá acceso a la clave HMAC. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC codificada "secret", a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.7.1, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.key_management_hardcoded_hmac_key
Abstract
Se utiliza una contraseña codificada para generar una clave a partir de una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas (PBKDF). El establecimiento de una contraseña con codificación rígida a una PBKDF compromete la seguridad del sistema de forma difícil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea pasar un valor vacío como argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas criptográfica (PBKDF). En este caso, la clave derivada se basará exclusivamente en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, a menudo la contraseña vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa un valor codificado como el argumento de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


...
Rfc2898DeriveBytes rdb = new Rfc2898DeriveBytes("password", salt,100000);
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que genere una o varias claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña codificada, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá obtener acceso a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves dañinas. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso a la sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña codificada, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez lanzado el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña codificada, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña codificada.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.dotnet.key_management_hardcoded_pbe_password
Abstract
Se utiliza una contraseña codificada para generar una clave a partir de una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas (PBKDF). El establecimiento de una contraseña con codificación rígida a una PBKDF compromete la seguridad del sistema de forma difícil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca pase un valor codificado como el argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de clave basada en contraseña criptográfica (PBKDF). En este caso, la clave derivada se basa sobre todo en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, normalmente la contraseña codificada no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña codificada se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa un valor codificado como el argumento de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


...
var encryptor = new StrongPasswordEncryptor();
var encryptedPassword = encryptor.encryptPassword("password");
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que genere una o varias claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña codificada, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá obtener acceso a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves dañinas. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso a la sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña codificada, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez lanzado el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña codificada, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña codificada.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.key_management_hardcoded_pbe_password
Abstract
La generación y el uso de una clave criptográfica basada en una contraseña codificada puede comprometer la seguridad del sistema de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca pase un valor codificado como el argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de clave basada en contraseña criptográfica (PBKDF). En este caso, la clave derivada se basa sobre todo en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, normalmente la contraseña codificada no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña codificada se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa un valor codificado como el argumento de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(kCCPBKDF2,
"secret",
6,
salt,
saltLen
kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256,
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen);
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que genere una o varias claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña codificada, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá obtener acceso a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves dañinas. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso a la sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña codificada, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez lanzado el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña codificada, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña codificada.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.key_management_hardcoded_pbe_password
Abstract
Se utiliza una contraseña codificada para generar una clave a partir de una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas (PBKDF). El establecimiento de una contraseña con codificación rígida a una PBKDF compromete la seguridad del sistema de forma difícil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca pase un valor codificado como el argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de clave basada en contraseña criptográfica (PBKDF). En este caso, la clave derivada se basa sobre todo en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, normalmente la contraseña codificada no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña codificada se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa un valor codificado como el argumento de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


...
$zip = new ZipArchive();
$zip->open("test.zip", ZipArchive::CREATE);
$zip->setEncryptionIndex(0, ZipArchive::EM_AES_256, "hardcodedpassword");
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código puede determinar que genera una o más claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña codificado. Además, cualquiera que tenga incluso técnicas básicas de descifrado podría obtener acceso con éxito a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves infractoras. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso a la sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña codificada, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez lanzado el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña codificada, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña codificada.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.php.key_management_hardcoded_pbe_password
Abstract
Se utiliza una contraseña codificada para generar una clave a partir de una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas (PBKDF). El establecimiento de una contraseña con codificación rígida a una PBKDF compromete la seguridad del sistema de forma difícil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca pase un valor codificado como el argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de clave basada en contraseña criptográfica (PBKDF). En este caso, la clave derivada se basa sobre todo en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, normalmente la contraseña codificada no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña codificada se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa un valor codificado como el argumento de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


from hashlib import pbkdf2_hmac
...
dk = pbkdf2_hmac('sha256', 'password', salt, 100000)
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que genere una o varias claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña codificada, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá obtener acceso a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves dañinas. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso a la sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña codificada, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez lanzado el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña codificada, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña codificada.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.python.key_management_hardcoded_pbe_password
Abstract
Se utiliza una contraseña codificada para generar una clave a partir de una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas (PBKDF). El establecimiento de una contraseña con codificación rígida a una PBKDF compromete la seguridad del sistema de forma difícil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca pase un valor codificado como el argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de clave basada en contraseña criptográfica (PBKDF). En este caso, la clave derivada se basa sobre todo en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, normalmente la contraseña codificada no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña codificada se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa un valor codificado como el argumento de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


...
key = OpenSSL::PKCS5::pbkdf2_hmac('password', salt, 100000, 256, 'SHA256')
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que genere una o varias claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña codificada, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá obtener acceso a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves dañinas. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso a la sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña codificada, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez lanzado el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña codificada, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña codificada.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.ruby.key_management_hardcoded_pbe_password
Abstract
La generación y el uso de una clave criptográfica basada en una contraseña codificada puede comprometer la seguridad del sistema de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca pase un valor codificado como el argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de clave basada en contraseña criptográfica (PBKDF). En este caso, la clave derivada se basa sobre todo en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, normalmente la contraseña codificada no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña codificada se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa un valor codificado como el argumento de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(CCPBKDFAlgorithm(kCCPBKDF2),
"secret",
6,
salt,
saltLen,
CCPseudoRandomAlgorithm(kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256),
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen)
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que genere una o varias claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña codificada, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá obtener acceso a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves dañinas. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso a la sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña codificada, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez lanzado el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña codificada, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña codificada.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.key_management_hardcoded_pbe_password
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado Null pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
El uso de una clave de cifrado null nunca es una buena idea porque reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado, pero también dificulta en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado null. Si una cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado null se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado null:


...
var encryptionKey:ByteArray = null;
...
var aes.ICipher = Crypto.getCipher("aes-cbc", encryptionKey, padding);
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado null, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez lanzada la aplicación, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado null. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado null.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.actionscript.key_management_null_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado Null pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave de cifrado null. El uso de una clave de cifrado null no solo reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado, sino que además dificulta enormemente la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado null. Si una cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado null se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo: El código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado null:


...
char encryptionKey[] = null;
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado null, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado null. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado null.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.cpp.key_management_null_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado nulas pueden comprometer la seguridad de una forma difícil de resolver.
Explanation
El uso de una clave de cifrado null nunca es una idea acertada, ya que reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado, y además dificulta en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino se encuentra en producción, se requiere una revisión de software para cambiar la clave de cifrado null. Si una cuenta protegida con la clave de cifrado null se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deben elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado null:


...
aes.NewCipher(nil)
...


Cualquier usuario con acceso al código puede determinar si se utiliza una clave de cifrado null. Además, un usuario que aplique técnicas de descifrado básicas tiene muchas más probabilidades de descifrar con éxito los datos cifrados. Una vez distribuida la aplicación, se requiere una revisión de software para cambiar la clave de cifrado null. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado null.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.golang.key_management_null_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado nulas pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
El uso de una clave de cifrado null nunca es una buena idea porque reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado, pero también dificulta en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado null. Si una cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado null se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado null:


...
SecretKeySpec key = null;
....
Cipher encryptCipher = Cipher.getInstance("AES");
encryptCipher.init(Cipher.ENCRYPT_MODE, key);
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado null, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez lanzada la aplicación, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado null. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado null.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.key_management_null_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado nulas pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
El uso de una clave de cifrado null nunca es una buena idea porque reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado, pero también dificulta en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado null. Si una cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado null se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado null:


...
var crypto = require('crypto');
var encryptionKey = null;
var algorithm = 'aes-256-ctr';
var cipher = crypto.createCipher(algorithm, encryptionKey);
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado null, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez lanzada la aplicación, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado null. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado null.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.javascript.key_management_null_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado nulas pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
El uso de una clave de cifrado null nunca es una buena idea porque reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado, pero también dificulta en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado null. Si una cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado null se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado null:


...
CCCrypt(kCCEncrypt,
kCCAlgorithmAES,
kCCOptionPKCS7Padding,
nil,
0,
iv,
plaintext,
sizeof(plaintext),
ciphertext,
sizeof(ciphertext),
&numBytesEncrypted);
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado null, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez lanzada la aplicación, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado null. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado null.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.key_management_null_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado nulas pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Asignar null a las variables de la clave de cifrado no es una buena idea, ya que puede permitir a los usuarios malintencionados mostrar información confidencial y cifrada. El uso de una clave de cifrado null no solo reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado, sino que además dificulta enormemente la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado null. Si una cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado null se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo: El siguiente código inicia una variable de clave de cifrado como null.


...
$encryption_key = NULL;

$filter = new Zend_Filter_Encrypt($encryption_key);

$filter->setVector('myIV');

$encrypted = $filter->filter('text_to_be_encrypted');
print $encrypted;
...

Cualquier persona que tenga acceso al código podría determinar que este utiliza una clave de cifrado null, y cualquier persona que aplique técnicas de descifrado, incluso básicas, tiene muchas probabilidades de descifrar correctamente los datos cifrados. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado null. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado null.
References
[1] Windows Data Protection Microsoft
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.php.key_management_null_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado nulas pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
El uso de una clave de cifrado null nunca es una buena idea porque reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado, pero también dificulta en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado null. Si una cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado null se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.



No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado null, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez lanzada la aplicación, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado null. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado null.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.sql.key_management_null_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado nulas pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Asignar None a las variables de la clave de cifrado no es una buena idea, ya que puede permitir a los usuarios malintencionados mostrar información confidencial y cifrada. El uso de una clave de cifrado null no solo reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado, sino que además dificulta enormemente la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado null. Si una cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado null se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo: El siguiente código inicia una variable de clave de cifrado como null.

...
from Crypto.Ciphers import AES
cipher = AES.new(None, AES.MODE_CFB, iv)
msg = iv + cipher.encrypt(b'Attack at dawn')
...


Cualquier persona que tenga acceso al código podría determinar que este utiliza una clave de cifrado null, y cualquier persona que aplique técnicas de descifrado, incluso básicas, tiene muchas probabilidades de descifrar correctamente los datos cifrados. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado null. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado null.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.python.key_management_null_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado nulas pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave de cifrado null. El uso de una clave de cifrado null no solo reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado, sino que además dificulta enormemente la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado null. Si una cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado null se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Cualquier persona que tenga acceso al código podría determinar que este utiliza una clave de cifrado null, y cualquier persona que aplique técnicas de descifrado, incluso básicas, tiene muchas probabilidades de descifrar correctamente los datos cifrados. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado null. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado null.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.ruby.key_management_null_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado Null pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave de cifrado null. El uso de una clave de cifrado null no solo reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado, sino que además dificulta enormemente la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado null. Si una cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado null se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado null:


...
CCCrypt(UInt32(kCCEncrypt),
UInt32(kCCAlgorithmAES128),
UInt32(kCCOptionPKCS7Padding),
nil,
0,
iv,
plaintext,
plaintext.length,
ciphertext.mutableBytes,
ciphertext.length,
&numBytesEncrypted)
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado null, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado null. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado null.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.key_management_null_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado nulas pueden comprometer la seguridad de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
El uso de una clave de cifrado null nunca es una buena idea porque reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado, pero también dificulta en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado null. Si una cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado null se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado null:


...
Dim encryptionKey As String
Set encryptionKey = vbNullString
Dim AES As New System.Security.Cryptography.RijndaelManaged
On Error GoTo ErrorHandler
AES.Key = System.Text.Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(encryptionKey)
...
Exit Sub
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado null, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez lanzada la aplicación, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado null. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado null.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.vb.key_management_null_encryption_key
Abstract
La generación y el uso de una clave criptográfica basada en una contraseña null puede comprometer la seguridad del sistema de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea pasar un valor null como argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de clave basada en contraseña criptográfica. En este caso, la clave derivada resultante se basará exclusivamente en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, normalmente la contraseña null no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña null se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa un valor null como el argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de clave basada en contraseña criptográfica:


...
var encryptor = new StrongPasswordEncryptor();
var encryptedPassword = encryptor.encryptPassword(null);
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que genera una o varias claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña null, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá obtener acceso a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves dañinas. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso a la sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña null, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña null, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña null.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.2 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.key_management_null_pbe_password
Abstract
La generación y el uso de una clave criptográfica basada en una contraseña null puede comprometer la seguridad del sistema de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea pasar un valor null como argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de clave basada en contraseña criptográfica. En este caso, la clave derivada resultante se basará exclusivamente en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, normalmente la contraseña null no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña null se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa un valor null como el argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de clave basada en contraseña criptográfica:


...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(kCCPBKDF2,
nil,
0,
salt,
saltLen
kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256,
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen);
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que genera una o varias claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña null, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá obtener acceso a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves dañinas. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso a la sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña null, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña null, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña null.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.2 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.key_management_null_pbe_password
Abstract
La generación y el uso de una clave criptográfica basada en una contraseña null puede comprometer la seguridad del sistema de forma que no pueda resolverse fácilmente.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea pasar un valor null como argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de clave basada en contraseña criptográfica. En este caso, la clave derivada resultante se basará exclusivamente en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, normalmente la contraseña null no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña null se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa un valor null como el argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de clave basada en contraseña criptográfica:


...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(CCPBKDFAlgorithm(kCCPBKDF2),
nil,
0,
salt,
saltLen,
CCPseudoRandomAlgorithm(kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256),
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen)
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que genera una o varias claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña null, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá obtener acceso a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves dañinas. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso a la sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña null, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña null, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña null.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.2 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.key_management_null_pbe_password
Abstract
El cifrado criptográfico o las claves privadas de firma no se deben almacenar en texto sin formato.
Explanation
Las claves privadas utilizadas para el cifrado o la firma se deben considerar como datos confidenciales y se deben cifrar con una frase de contraseña robusta antes del almacenamiento. Esto impide el acceso no autorizado por parte de usuarios malintencionadoss en caso de robo o filtración y de usuarios con permisos insuficientes.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código exporta una clave privada RSA con un formato PEM sin cifrar:


from Crypto.PublicKey import RSA

key = RSA.generate(2048)
f = open('mykey.pem','w')
f.write(key.exportKey(format='PEM'))
f.close()
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000201, CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001820 CAT I, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.python.key_management_unencrypted_private_key
Abstract
El cifrado criptográfico o las claves privadas de firma no se deben almacenar en texto sin formato.
Explanation
Las claves privadas utilizadas para el cifrado o la firma se deben considerar como datos confidenciales y se deben cifrar con una frase de contraseña robusta antes del almacenamiento. Esto impide el acceso no autorizado por parte de usuarios malintencionadoss en caso de robo o filtración y de usuarios con permisos insuficientes.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código exporta una clave privada RSA con un formato PEM sin cifrar:


require 'openssl'

key = OpenSSL::PKey::RSA.new 2048
File.open('mykey.pem', 'w') do |file|
file.write(key.to_pem)
end
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000201, CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001820 CAT I, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.ruby.key_management_unencrypted_private_key
Abstract
Una aplicación que realiza una búsqueda LDAP de devolución de objetos permitirá a los atacantes controlar la respuesta LDAP para ejecutar código arbitrario en el servidor.
Explanation
Un atacante capaz de manipular una respuesta LDAP, ya sea modificando la entrada en reposo o interceptando y modificando la respuesta sobre la marcha (ataque "man-in-the-middle") podrá inyectar atributos especiales de Java en la entrada LDAP. Al realizar una búsqueda de devolución de objetos, los atributos de Java se decodifican como objetos Java mediante la deserialización de Java o la eliminación de referencias de JNDI, lo que permite a los atacantes conseguir la ejecución remota de código en el servidor de aplicaciones que realiza la búsqueda.

La aplicación realiza una búsqueda de devolución de objetos estableciendo returningObjectFlag en true en la instancia de javax.naming.directory.SearchControls pasada al método search o mediante el uso de una función de biblioteca que establece esta marca en su nombre.

En este caso, la aplicación está utilizando el módulo de autorización de Spring Security LDAP que realiza búsquedas de devolución de objetos y, por lo tanto, es vulnerable a LDAP Entry Poisoning.

Ejemplo: El archivo de configuración de Beans siguiente configura la aplicación para utilizar el módulo LDAP de Spring Security como el proveedor de autenticación.


<beans ... >
<authentication-manager>
<ldap-authentication-provider
user-search-filter="(uid={0})"
user-search-base="ou=users,dc=example,dc=org"
group-search-filter="(uniqueMember={0})"
group-search-base="ou=groups,dc=example,dc=org"
group-role-attribute="cn"
role-prefix="ROLE_">
</ldap-authentication-provider>
</authentication-manager>
</beans>
References
[1] Introducing JNDI Injection and LDAP Entry Poisoning OpenText Fortify
[2] A Journey from JNDI/LDAP manipulation to remote code execution dream land BlackHat
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 20
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[16] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[17] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[18] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[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 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 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 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
desc.configuration.java.ldap_entry_poisoning
Abstract
El nivel de privilegio elevado necesario para realizar operaciones como, por ejemplo, chroot() debe descartarse justo después de que se realice la operación.
Explanation
Cuando un programa llama a una función con privilegios como, por ejemplo, chroot(), debe adquirir primero el privilegio root. Una vez completada la operación con privilegios, el programa debería descartar el privilegio root y restablecer el nivel de privilegios del usuario que realiza la llamada.
Ejemplo: el siguiente código llama a chroot() para restringir la aplicación a un subconjunto del sistema de archivos por debajo de APP_HOME a fin de impedir que un atacante utilice el programa para obtener acceso a los archivos ubicados en otra ubicación. A continuación, el código abre el archivo especificado por el usuario y procesa su contenido.


...
chroot(APP_HOME);
chdir("/");

FILE* data = fopen(argv[1], "r+");
...


La limitación del proceso en el directorio principal de la aplicación antes de abrir los archivos es una medida de seguridad valiosa. Sin embargo, la ausencia de una llamada a setuid() con valores distintos a cero implica que la aplicación sigue funcionando con los privilegios root innecesarios. Cualquier ataque con éxito que lleve a cabo un usuario malintencionado contra la aplicación puede provocar ahora un ataque de extensión de privilegios debido a que todas las operaciones maliciosas se realizarán con el privilegio de superusuario. Si la aplicación cambia al nivel de privilegios de un usuario que no sea root, los posibles daños se reducen considerablemente.
References
[1] A. Chuvakin Using Chroot Securely
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 272
[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), CM-7 Least Functionality (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege, CM-7 Least Functionality
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.4.3 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 1.4.3 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.2 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[26] 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
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.controlflow.cpp.least_privilege_violation
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo: El siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor de un objeto de solicitud. A continuación, se registra el valor.


...
DATA log_msg TYPE bal_s_msg.

val = request->get_form_field( 'val' ).

log_msg-msgid = 'XY'.
log_msg-msgty = 'E'.
log_msg-msgno = '123'.
log_msg-msgv1 = 'VAL: '.
log_msg-msgv2 = val.

CALL FUNCTION 'BAL_LOG_MSG_ADD'
EXPORTING
I_S_MSG = log_msg
EXCEPTIONS
LOG_NOT_FOUND = 1
MSG_INCONSISTENT = 2
LOG_IS_FULL = 3
OTHERS = 4.
...


Si un usuario envía la cadena "FOO" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


XY E 123 VAL: FOO


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "FOO XY E 124 VAL: BAR", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


XY E 123 VAL: FOO XY E 124 VAL: BAR


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.abap.log_forging
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo: el siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


var params:Object = LoaderInfo(this.root.loaderInfo).parameters;
var val:String = String(params["username"]);
var value:Number = parseInt(val);
if (value == Number.NaN) {
trace("Failed to parse val = " + val);
}


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


Failed to parse val=twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


Failed to parse val=twenty-one

User logged out=badguy


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.actionscript.log_forging
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos se introducen en una aplicación desde una fuente no fiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o en un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo: el siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


...
string val = (string)Session["val"];
try {
int value = Int32.Parse(val);
}
catch (FormatException fe) {
log.Info("Failed to parse val= " + val);
}
...


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=badguy


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.log_forging
Abstract
La escritura de una entrada de usuario no validada en los archivos de registro puede permitir a un usuario malintencionado falsificar contenido malicioso en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos escritos en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. En función de la naturaleza de la aplicación, los archivos de registro se pueden revisar manualmente según sea necesario o analizar automáticamente de forma selectiva mediante herramientas que buscan en los registros tendencias o puntos de datos importantes.

El análisis de los archivos de registro puede verse entorpecido o las conclusiones basadas en los datos de registro pueden ser incorrectas si se permite a un usuario malintencionado proporcionar datos en la aplicación que se registran posteriormente de forma exacta. Un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el registro incluyendo caracteres de separador de entradas de registro en los datos. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor caso, un usuario malintencionado introduce código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovecha una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento de registros [2].

Ejemplo: el siguiente código de una secuencia de comandos CGI acepta una cadena enviada por el usuario e intenta convertirla en el valor de entero largo que representa. Si el valor no se analiza como un entero, su valor se registra con un mensaje de error que indica lo sucedido.


long value = strtol(val, &endPtr, 10);
if (*endPtr != '\0')
syslog(LOG_INFO,"Illegal value = %s",val);
...



Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


Illegal value=twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "twenty-one\n\nINFO: User logged out=evil", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Illegal value=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=evil


Claramente, el atacante puede utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias. Para que un ataque de falsificación de registro de este tipo sea eficaz, el usuario malintencionado debe identificar primero formatos de entrada de registro válidos, pero esto a menudo se puede realizar mediante pérdidas de información del sistema en la aplicación de destino.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.cpp.log_forging
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En los casos menos graves, un atacante podría insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro, proporcionando a la aplicación una entrada que incluya caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante podría inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo: el siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor de un formulario HTML. A continuación, se registra el valor.


...
01 LOGAREA.
05 VALHEADER PIC X(50) VALUE 'VAL: '.
05 VAL PIC X(50).
...

EXEC CICS
WEB READ
FORMFIELD(NAME)
VALUE(VAL)
...
END-EXEC.

EXEC DLI
LOG
FROM(LOGAREA)
LENGTH(50)
END-EXEC.
...


Si un usuario envía la cadena "FOO" para VAL, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


VAL: FOO


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "FOO VAL: BAR", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


VAL: FOO VAL: BAR


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.cobol.log_forging
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.


2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.


Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo: el siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un formulario web. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


<cflog file="app_log" application="No" Thread="No"
text="Failed to parse val="#Form.val#">


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


"Information",,"02/28/01","14:50:37",,"Failed to parse val=twenty-one"


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "twenty-one%0a%0a%22Information%22%2C%2C%2202/28/01%22%2C%2214:53:40%22%2C%2C%22User%20logged%20out:%20badguy%22", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


"Information",,"02/28/01","14:50:37",,"Failed to parse val=twenty-one"

"Information",,"02/28/01","14:53:40",,"User logged out: badguy"


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.cfml.log_forging
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando ocurre lo siguiente:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos, ver transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo: El siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


func someHandler(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request){
r.parseForm()
name := r.FormValue("name")
logout := r.FormValue("logout")
...
if (logout){
...
} else {
log.Printf("Attempt to log out: name: %s logout: %s", name, logout)
}
}


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para logout y pudo crear un usuario con nombre "admin", se registrará la siguiente entrada:


Attempt to log out: name: admin logout: twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado es capaz de crear un nombre de usuario "admin+logout:+1+++++++++++++++++++++++", se registrará la siguiente entrada:


Attempt to log out: name: admin logout: 1 logout: twenty-one
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.golang.log_forging
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


...
String val = request.getParameter("val");
try {
int value = Integer.parseInt(val);
}
catch (NumberFormatException nfe) {
log.info("Failed to parse val = " + val);
}
...


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=badguy


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias.

Algunos piensan que en el mundo de las plataformas móviles, las vulnerabilidades de las aplicaciones web clásicas como la falsificación de registros no tienen ningún sentido: ¿por qué se atacaría un usuario a sí mismo? Sin embargo, tenga en cuenta que la esencia de las plataformas móviles consiste en aplicaciones que se descargan desde varias fuentes y se ejecutan junto con otras en el mismo dispositivo. La probabilidad de ejecutar un malware junto a una aplicación de banca es bastante alta, de modo que se necesita expandir la superficie expuesta a ataques de las aplicaciones móviles para que incluyan las comunicaciones entre procesos.

Ejemplo 2: el siguiente código adapta el Example 1 a la plataforma Android.


...
String val = this.getIntent().getExtras().getString("val");
try {
int value = Integer.parseInt();
}
catch (NumberFormatException nfe) {
Log.e(TAG, "Failed to parse val = " + val);
}
...
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] IDS03-J. Do not log unsanitized user input CERT
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[14] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.log_forging
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


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

function listener(request, response){
var val = url.parse(request.url, true)['query']['val'];
if (isNaN(val)){
console.log("INFO: Failed to parse val = " + val);
}
...
}
...
http.createServer(listener).listen(8080);
...


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val = twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=badguy


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.javascript.log_forging
Abstract
La función identificada escribe la entrada del usuario sin validar en el registro. Un usuario malintencionado podría aprovechar las ventajas de este comportamiento para falsificar las entradas del registro o insertar contenido malintencionado en el registro.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. En función de la naturaleza de la aplicación, los archivos de registro se pueden revisar manualmente según sea necesario o analizar automáticamente de forma selectiva mediante herramientas que buscan en los registros tendencias o puntos de datos importantes.

El análisis de los archivos de registro puede verse entorpecido o las conclusiones basadas en los datos de registro pueden ser incorrectas si se permite a un usuario malintencionado proporcionar datos en la aplicación que se registran posteriormente de forma exacta. Un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el registro incluyendo caracteres de separador de entradas de registro en los datos. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor caso, un usuario malintencionado introduce código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovecha una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento de registros [2].

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código de una secuencia de comandos CGI acepta una cadena enviada por el usuario e intenta convertirla en el valor de entero largo que representa. Si el valor no se analiza como un entero, su valor se registra con un mensaje de error que indica lo sucedido.


long value = strtol(val, &endPtr, 10);
if (*endPtr != '\0')
NSLog("Illegal value = %s",val);
...



Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Illegal value=twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "twenty-one\n\nINFO: User logged out=evil", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Illegal value=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=evil


Claramente, el atacante puede utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias. Para que un ataque de falsificación de registro de este tipo sea eficaz, el atacante debe identificar primero formatos de entrada de registro válidos, pero esto a menudo se puede realizar mediante pérdidas de información del sistema en la aplicación de destino.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.objc.log_forging
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo: el siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


<?php
$name =$_GET['name'];
...
$logout =$_GET['logout'];

if(is_numeric($logout))
{
...
}
else
{
trigger_error("Attempt to log out: name: $name logout: $val");
}
?>


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para logout y pudo crear un usuario con nombre "admin", se registrará la siguiente entrada:


PHP Notice: Attempt to log out: name: admin logout: twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado es capaz de crear un nombre de usuario "admin+logout:+1+++++++++++++++++++++++", se registrará la siguiente entrada:


PHP Notice: Attempt to log out: name: admin logout: 1 logout: twenty-one
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.php.log_forging
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo: el siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


name = req.field('name')
...
logout = req.field('logout')

if (logout):
...
else:
logger.error("Attempt to log out: name: %s logout: %s" % (name,logout))


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para logout y pudo crear un usuario con nombre "admin", se registrará la siguiente entrada:


Attempt to log out: name: admin logout: twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado es capaz de crear un nombre de usuario "admin+logout:+1+++++++++++++++++++++++", se registrará la siguiente entrada:


Attempt to log out: name: admin logout: 1 logout: twenty-one
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.log_forging
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


...
val = req['val']
unless val.respond_to?(:to_int)
logger.info("Failed to parse val")
logger.info(val)
end
...


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val
INFO: twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val
INFO: twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=badguy


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.ruby.log_forging
Abstract
La función identificada escribe la entrada del usuario sin validar en el registro. Un usuario malintencionado podría aprovechar las ventajas de este comportamiento para falsificar las entradas del registro o insertar contenido malintencionado en el registro.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. En función de la naturaleza de la aplicación, los archivos de registro se pueden revisar manualmente según sea necesario o analizar automáticamente de forma selectiva mediante herramientas que buscan en los registros tendencias o puntos de datos importantes.

El análisis de los archivos de registro puede verse entorpecido o las conclusiones basadas en los datos de registro pueden ser incorrectas si se permite a un usuario malintencionado proporcionar datos en la aplicación que se registran posteriormente de forma exacta. Un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el registro incluyendo caracteres de separador de entradas de registro en los datos. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor caso, un usuario malintencionado introduce código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovecha una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento de registros [2].

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código acepta una cadena enviada por el usuario e intenta convertirla en el valor de entero que representa. Si el valor no se analiza como un entero, su valor se registra con un mensaje de error que indica lo sucedido.


...
let num = Int(param)
if num == nil {
NSLog("Illegal value = %@", param)
}
...


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Illegal value = twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "twenty-one\n\nINFO: User logged out=evil", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Illegal value=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=evil


Claramente, el atacante puede utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias. Para que un ataque de falsificación de registro de este tipo sea eficaz, el atacante debe identificar primero formatos de entrada de registro válidos, pero esto a menudo se puede realizar mediante pérdidas de información del sistema en la aplicación de destino.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.swift.log_forging
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo: el siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


...
Dim Val As Variant
Dim Value As Integer
Set Val = Request.Form("val")
If IsNumeric(Val) Then
Set Value = Val
Else
App.EventLog "Failed to parse val=" & Val, 1
End If
...


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


Failed to parse val=twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "twenty-one%0a%0a+User+logged+out%3dbadguy", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


Failed to parse val=twenty-one

User logged out=badguy


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.vb.log_forging
Abstract
La ejecución de comandos IMAP procedentes de un origen que no es de confianza puede provocar que el servidor IMAP ejecute comandos malintencionados en nombre de un usuario malintencionado.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de inyección de comandos IMAP se producen cuando un atacante puede influir en los comandos enviados a un servidor de correo IMAP.

1. Los datos entran en la aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se utilizan como una cadena o como parte de esta representando un comando que la aplicación ejecuta.

3. Al ejecutar el comando IMAP, el usuario malintencionado es capaz de ordenar al servidor que lleve a cabo acciones malintencionadas, como enviar correo no deseado.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código utiliza un parámetro de solicitud HTTP para diseñar un comando CREATE que se envía al servidor IMAP. Un atacante puede utilizar este parámetro para modificar el comando enviado al servidor e inyectar nuevos comandos utilizando caracteres CRLF.


...
final String foldername = request.getParameter("folder");
IMAPFolder folder = (IMAPFolder) store.getFolder("INBOX");
...
folder.doCommand(new IMAPFolder.ProtocolCommand() {
@Override
public Object doCommand(IMAPProtocol imapProtocol) throws ProtocolException {
try {
imapProtocol.simpleCommand("CREATE " + foldername, null);
} catch (Exception e) {
// Handle Exception
}
return null;
}
});
...
References
[1] OWASP Testing for IMAP/SMTP Injection (OTG-INPVAL-011)
[2] Vicente Aguilera Díaz MX Injection: Capturing and Exploiting Hidden Mail Servers
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 88, CWE ID 93, CWE ID 147
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [25] CWE ID 077
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [17] CWE ID 077
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [16] CWE ID 077
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Mail Command Injection (WASC-30)
desc.dataflow.java.mail_command_injection_imap