541 elementos encontrados
Debilidades
Abstract
El enlazador de estructuras utilizado para enlazar los parámetros de solicitud HTTP a la clase de modelos no se ha configurado de forma explícita para permitir o no permitir determinados atributos.
Explanation
Para facilitar el desarrollo y aumento de la productividad, la mayoría de las estructuras modernas permiten que se pueda crear una instancia de un objeto automáticamente y rellenar con los parámetros de solicitud HTTP aquellos nombres que coincidan con un atributo de la clase para enlazarlos. Crear instancias y rellenar objetos automáticamente acelera el desarrollo pero puede ocasionar problemas graves si se implementa sin cuidado. Cualquier atributo de las clases enlazadas o clases anidadas se enlazará automáticamente a los parámetros de solicitud HTTP. Por lo tanto, los usuarios malintencionados podrán asignar un valor a cualquier atributo de las clases enlazadas o anidadas, incluso aunque no estén expuestas al cliente a través de formularios web o contratos API.

Ejemplo 1: Sin configuración adicional, el siguiente método de controlador ASP.NET MVC enlazará los parámetros de solicitud HTTP a cualquier atributo de las clases RegisterModel o Details:


public ActionResult Register(RegisterModel model)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
try
{
return RedirectToAction("Index", "Home");
}
catch (MembershipCreateUserException e)
{
ModelState.AddModelError("", "");
}
}
return View(model);
}


Donde la clase RegisterModel se define como:


public class RegisterModel
{
[BindRequired]
[Display(Name = "User name")]
public string UserName { get; set; }

[BindRequired]
[DataType(DataType.Password)]
[Display(Name = "Password")]
public string Password { get; set; }

[DataType(DataType.Password)]
[Display(Name = "Confirm password")]
public string ConfirmPassword { get; set; }

public Details Details { get; set; }

public RegisterModel()
{
Details = new Details();
}
}


y la clase Details se define como:


public class Details
{
public bool IsAdmin { get; set; }
...
}
Ejemplo 2: Al utilizar TryUpdateModel() o UpdateModel() en ASP.NET MVC o aplicaciones web API, el enlazador de modelos intentará enlazar automáticamente todos los parámetros de solicitud HTTP de forma predeterminada:


public ViewResult Register()
{
var model = new RegisterModel();
TryUpdateModel<RegisterModel>(model);
return View("detail", model);
}
Ejemplo 3: En las aplicaciones de formulario web ASP.NET, el enlazador de modelos intentará enlazar automáticamente todos los parámetros de solicitud HTTP cuando se utilice TryUpdateModel() o UpdateModel() con la interfaz IValueProvider.

Employee emp = new Employee();
TryUpdateModel(emp, new System.Web.ModelBinding.FormValueProvider(ModelBindingExecutionContext));
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
db.SaveChanges();
}


y la clase Employee se define como:


public class Employee
{
public Employee()
{
IsAdmin = false;
IsManager = false;
}
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Email { get; set; }
public bool IsManager { get; set; }
public bool IsAdmin { get; set; }
}
References
[1] OWASP Mass assignment
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 915
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082, CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.2 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.structural.dotnet.mass_assignment_insecure_binder_configuration
Abstract
El enlazador de marco utilizado para enlazar los parámetros de solicitud HTTP a la clase de modelo no se ha configurado explícitamente para permitir o no permitir determinados atributos.
Explanation
Para facilitar el desarrollo y aumentar la productividad, la mayoría de los marcos modernos permiten crear una instancia de un objeto y rellenar ese objeto automáticamente con los parámetros de solicitud HTTP cuyos nombres coincidan con un atributo de la clase `que se va a enlazar. Crear instancias de objetos y rellenar los objetos automáticamente aceleran el desarrollo, pero pueden generar problemas graves si se implementan sin precaución. Cualquier atributo de las clases enlazadas, o clases anidadas, se enlazará automáticamente a los parámetros de solicitud HTTP. Por lo tanto, los usuarios malintencionados podrían asignar un valor a cualquier atributo de las clases enlazadas o anidadas, incluso si no están expuestas al cliente a través de formularios web o contratos API.

Ejemplo 1: Mediante el uso de Spring WebFlow sin configuración adicional, la siguiente acción enlazará los parámetros de solicitud HTTP a cualquier atributo de la clase Booking:


<view-state id="enterBookingDetails" model="booking">
<on-render>
<render fragments="body" />
</on-render>
<transition on="proceed" to="reviewBooking">
</transition>
<transition on="cancel" to="cancel" bind="false" />
</view-state>


Donde la clase Booking se define como:


public class Booking implements Serializable {
private Long id;
private User user;
private Hotel hotel;
private Date checkinDate;
private Date checkoutDate;
private String creditCard;
private String creditCardName;
private int creditCardExpiryMonth;
private int creditCardExpiryYear;
private boolean smoking;
private int beds;
private Set<Amenity> amenities;

// Public Getters and Setters
...
}
References
[1] OWASP Mass assignment
[2] Pivotal Spring MVC Known Vulnerabilities and Issues
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 915
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082, CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.2 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.config.java.mass_assignment_insecure_binder_configuration
Abstract
Cuando se permite rellenar automáticamente entidades de base de datos persistentes mediante parámetros de solicitud, se permite a un atacante crear registros no intencionados en entidades de asociación o actualizar campos no intencionados en el objeto de la entidad.
Explanation
Los objetos modelo son una representación orientada a objetos de entidades de base de datos. Proporcionan los métodos adecuados para cargar, almacenar, actualizar y eliminar entidades de base de datos asociadas.
Hibernate, Microsoft .NET Entity Framework y LINQ son ejemplos de marcos de trabajo de asignación relacional de objetos (ORM) que le ayudan a crear objetos modelo respaldados por bases de datos.

Many web frameworks strive to make life easier for developers by Muchos marcos de trabajo web tratan de facilitarles la vida a los desarrolladores proporcionando un mecanismo de enlace para los parámetros de solicitudes en objetos enlazados con solicitudes basado en la asociación de nombres de parámetros de solicitud con nombres de atributos de objeto modelo (basado en métodos públicos de asociación de getter y setter).

Si una aplicación utiliza clases ORM como objetos enlazados con solicitudes, es probable que un parámetro de solicitud pueda modificar cualquier campo en los objetos modelo correspondientes y cualquier campo anidado de un atributo de objeto.

Ejemplo 1: el Order, Customer y Profile son clases persistentes de Microsoft .NET Entity.

public class Order {
public string ordered { get; set; }
public List<LineItem> LineItems { get; set; }
pubilc virtual Customer Customer { get; set; }
...
}
public class Customer {
public int CustomerId { get; set; }
...
public virtual Profile Profile { get; set; }
...
}
public class Profile {
public int profileId { get; set; }
public string username { get; set; }
public string password { get; set; }
...
}
OrderController es la clase controlador MVC de ASP.NET que trata la solicitud:


public class OrderController : Controller{
StoreEntities db = new StoreEntities();
...

public String updateOrder(Order order) {
...
db.Orders.Add(order);
db.SaveChanges();
}
}

Dado que las clases de entidades modelo se enlazan de forma automática a las solicitudes, un atacante podría valerse de esta vulnerabilidad para actualizar la contraseña de otro usuario agregando los siguientes parámetros a la solicitud: "http://www.yourcorp.com/webApp/updateOrder?order.customer.profile.profileId=1234&order.customer.profile.password=urpowned"
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 915
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082, CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.2 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 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 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.structural.dotnet.mass_assignment_request_parameters_bound_into_persisted_objects
Abstract
Cuando se permite rellenar automáticamente entidades de base de datos persistentes mediante parámetros de solicitud, se permite a un usuario malintencionado crear registros no intencionados en entidades de asociación o actualizar campos no intencionados en el objeto de la entidad.
Explanation
Los objetos persistentes están enlazados a la base de datos subyacente y se actualizan automáticamente mediante la estructura de persistencia como, por ejemplo, Hibernate o JPA. Al permitir que estos objetos se enlacen dinámicamente a la solicitud por medio de Spring MVC, un usuario podría insertar valores inesperados en la base de datos proporcionando parámetros de solicitud adicionales.
Ejemplo 1: el Order, Customer y Profile son clases Hibernate persistentes.

public class Order {
String ordered;
List lineItems;
Customer cust;
...
}
public class Customer {
String customerId;
...
Profile p;
...
}
public class Profile {
String profileId;
String username;
String password;
...
}
OrderController es la clase de controlador que administra la solicitud:

@Controller
public class OrderController {
...
@RequestMapping("/updateOrder")
public String updateOrder(Order order) {
...
session.save(order);
}
}

Como las clases de comandos se enlazan automáticamente a la solicitud, un atacante puede aprovechar esta vulnerabilidad para actualizar la contraseña de otro usuario agregando los siguientes parámetros a la solicitud: "http://www.yourcorp.com/webApp/updateOrder?order.customer.profile.profileId=1234&order.customer.profile.password=urpowned"
References
[1] Ryan Berg and Dinis Cruz Two Security Vulnerabilities in the Spring Framework's MVC
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 915
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082, CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.2 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.structural.java.mass_assignment_request_parameters_bound_into_persisted_objects
Abstract
Un campo confidencial está expuesto al enlazador de modelos.
Explanation
Las estructuras modernas permiten a los desarrolladores enlazar automáticamente parámetros de solicitud de HTTP tanto de la consulta como del cuerpo de la solicitud en objetos de modelos para facilitar el desarrollo y el aumento de la productividad. Si el enlazador no está configurado correctamente para controlar qué parámetros de solicitud de HTTP están enlazados a qué atributos de modelo, un atacante puede ser capaz de abusar del proceso de enlace de modelos y establecer cualquier otro atributo que no se debería exponer al control del usuario. Este enlace es posible incluso si los atributos del modelo no aparecen en los formularios web o contratos API.

Ejemplo 1: se accede al siguiente método de controlador ASP.NET MVC (Register) desde un formulario web que pide a los usuarios que registren una cuenta proporcionando su nombre y contraseña:


public ActionResult Register(RegisterModel model)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
try
{
return RedirectToAction("Index", "Home");
}
catch (MembershipCreateUserException e)
{
ModelState.AddModelError("", "");
}
}
return View(model);
}


Donde la clase RegisterModel se define como:


public class RegisterModel
{
[BindRequired]
[Display(Name = "User name")]
public string UserName { get; set; }

[BindRequired]
[DataType(DataType.Password)]
[Display(Name = "Password")]
public string Password { get; set; }

[DataType(DataType.Password)]
[Display(Name = "Confirm password")]
public string ConfirmPassword { get; set; }

public Details Details { get; set; }

public RegisterModel()
{
Details = new Details();
}
}


y la clase Details se define como:


public class Details
{
public bool IsAdmin { get; set; }
...
}


Dado el escenario del Example 1, un atacante puede ser capaz de explorar la aplicación y detectar si hay un atributo de Details en el modelo RegisterModel. Si este fuera el caso, el atacante puede entonces intentar volver a escribir los valores actuales asignados a sus atributos.
Si un atacante puede encontrar estos atributos internos y el enlazador de estructuras no está configurado correctamente para no permitir enlazar estos atributos, el atacante podría entonces registrar una cuenta de administrador enviando la siguiente solicitud:


name=John&password=****&details.is_admin=true
References
[1] OWASP Mass assignment
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 915
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082, CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.2 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Process Validation (WASC-40)
desc.structural.dotnet.mass_assignment_sensitive_field_exposure
Abstract
Un campo confidencial está expuesto al enlazador de modelos.
Explanation
Los marcos modernos permiten a los desarrolladores enlazar automáticamente los parámetros de solicitud HTTP tanto de la consulta de solicitud como del cuerpo en los objetos del modelo para facilitar el desarrollo y aumentar la productividad. Si el enlazador no está configurado correctamente para controlar qué parámetros de solicitud HTTP están enlazados a qué atributos del modelo, un atacante puede abusar del proceso de enlace del modelo y establecer cualquier otro atributo que no deba exponerse al control del usuario. Este enlace es posible incluso si los atributos del modelo no aparecen en los formularios web o los contratos de API.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente elemento DynaActionForm de Struts 1 define dinámicamente un elemento ActionForm que está enlazado a las solicitudes de los usuarios. En este caso, se utiliza para registrar una cuenta proporcionando el tipo de cuenta y los detalles de un usuario:


<struts-config>
<form-beans>
<form-bean name="dynaUserForm"
type="org.apache.struts.action.DynaActionForm" >
<form-property name="type" type="java.lang.String" />
<form-property name="user" type="com.acme.common.User" />
</form-bean>
...



Si el registro se realiza correctamente, los datos del usuario se conservarán en la base de datos. La clase User se define como:


public class User {
private String name;
private String lastname;
private int age;
private Details details;

// Public Getters and Setters
...
}


Y la clase Details se define como:


public class Details {
private boolean is_admin;
private int id;
private Date login_date;

// Public Getters and Setters
...
}


Dado el escenario del Example 1, un atacante puede ser capaz de explorar la aplicación y detectar si hay un atributo de details en el modelo User. Si este fuera el caso, el atacante puede entonces intentar volver a escribir los valores actuales asignados a sus atributos.
Si un atacante puede encontrar estos atributos internos, y el enlazador del marco no está configurado correctamente para no permitir el enlace de estos atributos, entonces el atacante podría registrar una cuenta de administrador enviando la siguiente solicitud:


type=free&user.name=John&user.lastname=Smith&age=22&details.is_admin=true
References
[1] OWASP Mass assignment
[2] Spring Spring MVC Known Vulnerabilities and Issues
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 915
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082, CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.2 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Process Validation (WASC-40)
desc.config.java.mass_assignment_sensitive_field_exposure
Abstract
Es posible que el programa elimine la referencia de un puntero nulo porque no comprueba el valor de devolución de una función que puede que devuelva un valor null.
Explanation
Prácticamente cada ataque grave a un sistema de software comienza con la infracción de los supuestos del programador. Después del ataque, las suposiciones del programador parecen débiles y mal fundadas, pero antes de un ataque muchos programadores defenderían sus suposiciones mucho más allá del final de la hora del almuerzo.

Dos supuestos dudosos fácilmente detectables en el código son "la llamada a esta función no presentará nunca errores" y "no importa si presenta errores la función a esta llamada". Si un programador omite el valor de devolución de una función, indican de forma implícita que están trabajando baso una de estas suposiciones.
Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código no comprueba si la cadena devuelta por la propiedad Item es null antes de llamar a la función miembro Equals(), lo que podría provocar una eliminación de referencia de un valor null.


string itemName = request.Item(ITEM_NAME);
if (itemName.Equals(IMPORTANT_ITEM)) {
...
}
...


La defensa tradicional de este código de error es la siguiente:

"Sé que el valor solicitado siempre existirá porque... Si no existe, el programa no puede presentar el comportamiento deseado, por lo que no importa si gestiono el error o solo permito que el programa se anule mediante la eliminación de la referencia de un valor null".

Sin embargo, los usuarios malintencionados son expertos en buscar rutas inesperadas a través de programas, sobre todo, cuando se producen excepciones.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 253, CWE ID 690
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [21] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.dotnet.missing_check_against_null
Abstract
Es posible que el programa elimine la referencia de un puntero nulo porque no comprueba el valor de devolución de una función que puede que devuelva un valor null.
Explanation
Prácticamente cada ataque grave a un sistema de software comienza con la infracción de los supuestos del programador. Después del ataque, las suposiciones del programador parecen débiles y mal fundadas, pero antes de un ataque muchos programadores defenderían sus suposiciones mucho más allá del final de la hora del almuerzo.

Dos supuestos dudosos fácilmente detectables en el código son "la llamada a esta función no presentará nunca errores" y "no importa si presenta errores la función a esta llamada". Si un programador omite el valor de devolución de una función, indican de forma implícita que están trabajando baso una de estas suposiciones.
Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código no comprueba si la asignación de memoria se realizó correctamente antes de intentar usar el puntero devuelto por malloc().


buf = (char*) malloc(req_size);
strncpy(buf, xfer, req_size);


La defensa tradicional de este código de error es la siguiente:

"Si se agota la memoria del programa, este presentará errores. No importa si administro el error o simplemente dejo que el programa finalice con un error de segmentación cuando intenta eliminar la referencia del puntero nulo".

Este argumento pasa por alto tres consideraciones importantes:

- En función del tipo y el tamaño de la aplicación, puede que sea posible liberar la memoria que se está utilizando en otra ubicación para que la ejecución pueda continuar.

- Es imposible que el programa realice una salida de manera hábil si es necesario. Si el programa realiza una operación atómica, puede dejar el sistema en un estado inconsistente.

- El programador ha perdido la oportunidad de registrar la información de diagnóstico. ¿La llamada a malloc() presentó errores debido a que req_size era demasiado grande o a que se estaban administrando demasiadas solicitudes al mismo tiempo? ¿O el error lo provocó una pérdida de memoria que se acumuló a lo largo de un periodo? Si no se administra el error, es imposible saberlo.
References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 253, CWE ID 690
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [21] CWE ID 476
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.cpp.missing_check_against_null
Abstract
Es posible que el programa elimine la referencia de un puntero nulo porque no comprueba el valor de devolución de una función que puede que devuelva un valor null.
Explanation
Prácticamente cada ataque grave a un sistema de software comienza con la infracción de los supuestos del programador. Después del ataque, las suposiciones del programador parecen débiles y mal fundadas, pero antes de un ataque muchos programadores defenderían sus suposiciones mucho más allá del final de la hora del almuerzo.

Dos supuestos dudosos fácilmente detectables en el código son "la llamada a esta función no presentará nunca errores" y "no importa si presenta errores la función a esta llamada". Si un programador omite el valor de devolución de una función, indican de forma implícita que están trabajando baso una de estas suposiciones.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código no comprueba si la cadena devuelta por getParameter() es null antes de llamar a la función miembro compareTo(), lo que podría provocar una desreferencia de null.


String itemName = request.getParameter(ITEM_NAME);
if (itemName.compareTo(IMPORTANT_ITEM)) {
...
}
...
Ejemplo 2:. en el siguiente código se muestra una propiedad del sistema que se establece en un valor null y un programador elimina posteriormente su referencia al presuponer de forma incorrecta que siempre está definida.


System.clearProperty("os.name");
...
String os = System.getProperty("os.name");
if (os.equalsIgnoreCase("Windows 95") )
System.out.println("Not supported");


La defensa tradicional de este código de error es la siguiente:

"Sé que el valor solicitado siempre existirá porque... Si no existe, el programa no puede presentar el comportamiento deseado, por lo que no importa si gestiono el error o solo permito que el programa se anule mediante la eliminación de la referencia de un valor null".

Sin embargo, los usuarios malintencionados son expertos en buscar rutas inesperadas a través de programas, sobre todo, cuando se producen excepciones.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 253, CWE ID 690
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [21] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.java.missing_check_against_null
Abstract
Esta función infringe el contrato que debe comparar su parámetro con null.
Explanation
El estándar de Java exige que las implementaciones de Object.equals(), Comparable.compareTo() y Comparator.compare() devuelvan un valor especificado si sus parámetros son null. De no cumplir el contrato se daría lugar a un comportamiento inesperado.

Ejemplo 1: La implementación siguiente del método equals() no compara su parámetro con null.


public boolean equals(Object object)
{
return (toString().equals(object.toString()));
}
References
[1] MET10-J. Follow the general contract when implementing the compareTo() method CERT
[2] MET08-J. Preserve the equality contract when overriding the equals() method CERT
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 684
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
desc.controlflow.java.missing_check_for_null_parameter
Abstract
La aplicación no realiza ninguna validación de los datos del formulario.
Explanation
La aplicación no valida el tipo de datos recibidos de un formulario web. Es recomendable validar que los datos recibidos satisfagan los requisitos definidos para los datos esperados.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código define un elemento FormAction de Spring WebFlow que no valida los datos contra los requisitos esperados:


<bean id="customerCriteriaAction" class="org.springframework.webflow.action.FormAction">
<property name="formObjectClass"
value="com.acme.domain.CustomerCriteria" />
<property name="propertyEditorRegistrar">
<bean
class="com.acme.web.PropertyEditors" />
</property>
</bean>
Ejemplo 2: El siguiente código define un estado de acción de Spring WebFlow que no valida los datos con respecto a los requisitos esperados:


<action-state>
<action bean="transferMoneyAction" method="bind" />
</action-state>
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 108
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] 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)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[29] 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
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.config.java.missing_form_field_validation
Abstract
La aplicación no realiza ninguna validación de los datos del formulario.
Explanation
La aplicación no puede validar el tipo de datos recibidos desde un formulario web. Se recomienda comprobar que los datos recibidos satisfagan los requisitos definidos para los datos esperados.


Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente define un formulario, pero no valida los datos según los requisitos esperados:


def form = Form(
mapping(
"name" -> text,
"age" -> number
)(UserData.apply)(UserData.unapply)
)
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 108
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] 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)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[29] 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
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.structural.scala.missing_form_field_validation
Abstract
Una clase clonable que realiza esta comprobación en su constructor tiene que realizar la misma comprobación en su método clone().
Explanation
Cuando se invoca un método clone() de la clase, no se invoca el constructor para la clase que se está clonando. Así pues, si hay una comprobación SecurityManager o AccessController en el constructor de una clase clonable, debe estar presente la misma comprobación en el método de clonación de la clase. De no ser así, la comprobación de seguridad se derivará cuando se clone la clase.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente contiene una comprobación SecurityManager en el constructor, pero no en el método clone().

public class BadSecurityCheck implements Cloneable {

private int id;

public BadSecurityCheck() {
SecurityManager sm = System.getSecurityManager();
if (sm != null) {
sm.checkPermission(new BadPermission("BadSecurityCheck"));
}
id = 1;
}

public Object clone() throws CloneNotSupportedException {
BadSecurityCheck bsm = (BadSecurityCheck)super.clone();
return null;
}
}
References
[1] "Secure Coding Guidelines for the Java Programming Language, version 2.0" Sun Microsystems, Inc. [Online]. [Accessed: Aug. 30, 2007]. Sun Microsystems, Inc.
[2] C. Lai Java Insecurity: Accounting for Subtleties That Can Compromise Code
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 358
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002165
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1), CM-7 Least Functionality (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement, CM-7 Least Functionality
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
desc.structural.java.missing_securitymanager_check_cloneable
Abstract
Una clase serializable que realiza una comprobación SecurityManager en su constructor tiene que realizar la misma comprobación en sus métodos readObject() y readObjectNoData.
Explanation
Cuando se invoca el método readObject() de una clase serializable, no se invoca el constructor para la clase que se está deserializando. Así pues, si hay una comprobación SecurityManager en el constructor de una clase serializable, también debe estar presente la misma comprobación SecurityManager en los métodos readObject() y readObjectNoData(). De no ser así, la comprobación de seguridad se derivará cuando la clase se deserialice.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente contiene una comprobación SecurityManager en el constructor, pero no en los métodos readObject() y readObjectNoData().

public class BadSecurityCheck implements Serializable {

private int id;

public BadSecurityCheck() {
SecurityManager sm = System.getSecurityManager();
if (sm != null) {
sm.checkPermission(new BadPermission("BadSecurityCheck"));
}
id = 1;
}

public void readObject(ObjectInputStream in) throws ClassNotFoundException, IOException {
in.defaultReadObject();
}

public void readObjectNoData(ObjectInputStream in) throws ClassNotFoundException, IOException {
in.defaultReadObject();
}
}
References
[1] "Secure Coding Guidelines for the Java Programming Language, version 2.0" Sun Microsystems, Inc. [Online]. [Accessed: Aug. 30, 2007]. Sun Microsystems, Inc.
[2] C. Lai Java Insecurity: Accounting for Subtleties That Can Compromise Code
[3] SERIAL-4: Duplicate the SecurityManager checks enforced in a class during serialization and deserialization Oracle
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 358
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002165
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1), CM-7 Least Functionality (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement, CM-7 Least Functionality
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
desc.structural.java.missing_securitymanager_check_serializable
Abstract
Si no se consigue habilitar la validación a la hora de analizar XML, el atacante tendrá la oportunidad de proporcionar entradas maliciosas.
Explanation
Los ataques con más éxito comienzan con una violación de los supuestos del programador. Si se acepta un documento XML sin validarlo con respecto a un esquema XML o DTD, el programador deja una puerta abierta para que los atacantes proporcionen entradas inesperadas, inadmisibles o maliciosas. Un analizador XML no puede validar todos los aspectos del contenido de un documento; no puede comprender la semántica completa de los datos. No obstante, puede realizar un trabajo completo y exhaustivo de comprobación de la estructura del documento y, así, garantizar que el código que procesa el documento que contiene cuenta con el formato correcto.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 112
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310, CCI-002385, CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[14] 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), 13.3.1 SOAP Web Service Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.controlflow.abap.missing_xml_validation
Abstract
Si no se consigue habilitar la validación a la hora de analizar XML, el atacante tendrá la oportunidad de proporcionar entradas maliciosas.
Explanation
Los ataques con más éxito comienzan con una violación de los supuestos del programador. Si se acepta un documento XML sin validarlo con respecto a un esquema XML o DTD, el programador deja una puerta abierta para que los atacantes proporcionen entradas inesperadas, inadmisibles o maliciosas. Un analizador XML no puede validar todos los aspectos del contenido de un documento; no puede comprender la semántica completa de los datos. No obstante, puede realizar un trabajo completo y exhaustivo de comprobación de la estructura del documento y, así, garantizar que el código que procesa el documento que contiene cuenta con el formato correcto.
References
[1] XmlReader Class Microsoft
[2] XmlReaderSettings Class Microsoft
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 112
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310, CCI-002385, CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[16] 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), 13.3.1 SOAP Web Service Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.controlflow.dotnet.missing_xml_validation
Abstract
Si no se consigue habilitar la validación a la hora de analizar XML, el atacante tendrá la oportunidad de proporcionar entradas maliciosas.
Explanation
Los ataques con más éxito comienzan con una violación de los supuestos del programador. Si se acepta un documento XML sin validarlo con respecto a un esquema XML o DTD, el programador deja una puerta abierta para que los atacantes proporcionen entradas inesperadas, inadmisibles o maliciosas. Un analizador XML no puede validar todos los aspectos del contenido de un documento; no puede comprender la semántica completa de los datos. No obstante, puede realizar un trabajo completo y exhaustivo de comprobación de la estructura del documento y, así, garantizar que el código que procesa el documento que contiene cuenta con el formato correcto.
References
[1] Xerces parser features The Apache Foundation
[2] XML Validation in J2SE 1.5 Sun Microsystems
[3] Axis User's Guide Apache Software Foundation
[4] IDS16-J. Prevent XML Injection CERT
[5] IDS17-J. Prevent XML External Entity Attacks CERT
[6] INJECT-3: XML and HTML generation requires care Oracle
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 112
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310, CCI-002385, CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[20] 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), 13.3.1 SOAP Web Service Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, 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 Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.controlflow.java.missing_xml_validation
Abstract
Si no se consigue habilitar la validación a la hora de analizar XML, el atacante tendrá la oportunidad de proporcionar entradas maliciosas.
Explanation
Los ataques con más éxito comienzan con una violación de los supuestos del programador. Si se acepta un documento XML sin validarlo con respecto a un esquema XML o DTD, el programador deja una puerta abierta para que los atacantes proporcionen entradas inesperadas, inadmisibles o maliciosas. Un analizador XML no puede validar todos los aspectos del contenido de un documento; no puede comprender la semántica completa de los datos. No obstante, puede realizar un trabajo completo y exhaustivo de comprobación de la estructura del documento y, así, garantizar que el código que procesa el documento que contiene cuenta con el formato correcto.
References
[1] Xerces parser features The Apache Foundation
[2] XML Validation in J2SE 1.5 Sun Microsystems
[3] Axis User's Guide Apache Software Foundation
[4] IDS16-J. Prevent XML Injection CERT
[5] IDS17-J. Prevent XML External Entity Attacks CERT
[6] INJECT-3: XML and HTML generation requires care Oracle
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 112
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310, CCI-002385, CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[20] 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), 13.3.1 SOAP Web Service Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, 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 Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.controlflow.java.missing_xml_validation_untyped_response
Abstract
Si elabora una consulta DynamoDB dinámica con una entrada de un origen que no es de confianza, un usuario malintencionado podría modificar el significado de la instrucción.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades NoSQL Injection en DynamoDB se pueden producir cuando:

1. Los datos se introducen en un programa desde un origen que no es de confianza.



2. Los datos se utilizan para crear dinámicamente una consulta DynamoDB.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código crea y ejecuta dinámicamente una consulta DynamoDB que busca a un usuario en función de su nombre de usuario o dirección de correo electrónico, junto con su contraseña.


...
// "type" parameter expected to be either: "Email" or "Username"
string type = request["type"];
string value = request["value"];
string password = request["password"];

var ddb = new AmazonDynamoDBClient();

var attrValues = new Dictionary<string,AttributeValue>();
attrValues[":value"] = new AttributeValue(value);
attrValues[":password"] = new AttributeValue(password);

var scanRequest = new ScanRequest();
scanRequest.FilterExpression = type + " = :value AND Password = :password";
scanRequest.TableName = "users";
scanRequest.ExpressionAttributeValues = attrValues;

var scanResponse = await ddb.ScanAsync(scanRequest);
...


La consulta intenta ejecutar el código siguiente:

Email = :value AND Password = :password


o

Username = :value AND Password = :password


Sin embargo, dado que la consulta se crea dinámicamente mediante la concatenación de una cadena de consulta de base constante y una cadena de entrada del usuario, solo funciona correctamente si type contiene alguno de los valores esperados. Si un usuario malintencionado introduce un valor de tipo como :value = :value OR :value, entonces la consulta será como se muestra a continuación:

:value = :value OR :value = :value AND Password = :password


La adición de la condición :value = :value hace que la cláusula where siempre se evalúe como true, por lo que la consulta devuelve todas las entradas almacenadas en la colección users, sin importar el propietario del correo electrónico.
References
[1] Testing for NoSQL injection OWASP
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89, CWE ID 943
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.dotnet.nosql_injection_dynamodb
Abstract
Si elabora una consulta DynamoDB dinámica con una entrada de un origen que no es de confianza, un usuario malintencionado podría modificar el significado de la instrucción.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades NoSQL Injection en DynamoDB se pueden producir cuando:

1. Los datos entran en un programa desde un origen que no es de confianza.



2. Los datos se utilizan para crear dinámicamente una consulta DynamoDB.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código crea y ejecuta dinámicamente una consulta DynamoDB que busca a un usuario en función de su nombre de usuario o dirección de correo electrónico, junto con su contraseña.


...
// "type" parameter expected to be either: "Email" or "Username"
String type = request.getParameter("type")
String value = request.getParameter("value")
String password = request.getParameter("password")

DynamoDbClient ddb = DynamoDbClient.create();

HashMap<String, AttributeValue> attrValues = new HashMap<String,AttributeValue>();
attrValues.put(":value", AttributeValue.builder().s(value).build());
attrValues.put(":password", AttributeValue.builder().s(password).build());

ScanRequest queryReq = ScanRequest.builder()
.filterExpression(type + " = :value AND Password = :password")
.tableName("users")
.expressionAttributeValues(attrValues)
.build();

ScanResponse response = ddb.scan(queryReq);
...


La consulta intenta ejecutar el código siguiente:

Email = :value AND Password = :password


o

Username = :value AND Password = :password


Sin embargo, dado que la consulta se crea dinámicamente mediante la concatenación de una cadena de consulta de base constante y una cadena de entrada del usuario, solo funciona correctamente si type contiene alguno de los valores esperados. Si un usuario malintencionado introduce un valor de tipo como :value = :value OR :value, entonces la consulta será como se muestra a continuación:

:value = :value OR :value = :value AND Password = :password


La adición de la condición :value = :value hace que la cláusula where siempre se evalúe como true, por lo que la consulta devuelve todas las entradas almacenadas en la colección users, sin importar el propietario del correo electrónico.
References
[1] Testing for NoSQL injection OWASP
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89, CWE ID 943
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.java.nosql_injection_dynamodb
Abstract
Si se elabora una consulta MongoDB dinámica con una entrada de un origen que no es de confianza, un atacante podría modificar el significado de la instrucción.
Explanation
Los errores NoSQL Injection en MongoDB se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en un programa desde un origen que no es de confianza.



2. Los datos se utilizan para crear dinámicamente una consulta MongoDB.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente crea y ejecuta dinámicamente una consulta MongoDB que busca correos electrónicos con un ID específico.


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


La consulta intenta ejecutar el código siguiente:


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


Sin embargo, dado que la consulta se crea dinámicamente mediante la concatenación de una cadena de consulta constante y la entrada del usuario, solo funciona correctamente si emailId no contiene un carácter de comilla simple. Si un atacante con el nombre de usuario wiley introduce la cadena "123' || '4' != '5" para emailId, la consulta se convertirá en lo siguiente:


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


La adición de la condición || '4' != '5' hace que la cláusula where siempre se evalúe como true, por lo que la consulta devuelve todas las entradas almacenadas en la colección emails, independientemente del propietario del correo electrónico.
References
[1] Testing for NoSQL injection OWASP
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89, CWE ID 943
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.dotnet.nosql_injection_mongodb
Abstract
Si crea una consulta MongoDB dinámica con una entrada de un origen que no es de confianza, un atacante podría modificar el significado de la instrucción.
Explanation
Los errores NoSQL Injection en MongoDB se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en un programa desde un origen que no es de confianza.



2. Los datos se utilizan para crear dinámicamente una consulta MongoDB.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente crea y ejecuta dinámicamente una consulta MongoDB que busca correos electrónicos con un ID específico.


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


La consulta intenta ejecutar el código siguiente:


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


Sin embargo, dado que la consulta se crea dinámicamente mediante la concatenación de una cadena de consulta de base constante y una cadena de entrada del usuario, la consulta solo funciona correctamente si emailId no contiene un carácter de comilla doble. Si un atacante con el nombre de usuario wiley introduce la cadena "123" || "4" != "5" para emailId, la consulta se convertirá en lo siguiente:


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


La adición de la condición || "4" != "5" hace que la cláusula where siempre se evalúe como true, por lo que la consulta devuelve todas las entradas almacenadas en la colección emails, sin importar el propietario del correo electrónico.
References
[1] Testing for NoSQL injection OWASP
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89, CWE ID 943
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.java.nosql_injection_mongodb
Abstract
Si elabora una consulta MongoDB dinámica con una entrada de un origen que no es de confianza, un atacante podría modificar el significado de la instrucción.
Explanation
Los errores NoSQL Injection en MongoDB se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en un programa desde un origen que no es de confianza.



2. Los datos se utilizan para crear dinámicamente una consulta MongoDB.

Ejemplo 1:el código siguiente crea y ejecuta dinámicamente una consulta MongoDB que busca correos electrónicos con un ID específico.


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


La consulta intenta ejecutar el código siguiente:


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


Sin embargo, dado que la consulta se crea dinámicamente mediante la concatenación de una cadena de consulta de base constante y una cadena de entrada del usuario, la consulta solo funciona correctamente si emailId no contiene un carácter de comilla doble. Si un atacante con el nombre de usuario wiley introduce la cadena "123" || "4" != "5" para emailId, la consulta se convertirá en lo siguiente:


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


Al añadir la condición || "4" != "5", la cláusula where siempre se evalúa como true, por lo que la consulta devuelve todas las entradas almacenadas en la colección emails, sin importar el propietario del correo electrónico.
References
[1] Testing for NoSQL injection OWASP
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89, CWE ID 943
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.python.nosql_injection_mongodb
Abstract
El programa puede eliminar potencialmente la referencia de un puntero nulo, generando una NullException.
Explanation
Los punteros nulos suelen producirse debido a que se ha infringido alguna presuposición del programador.

La mayoría de los problemas con el puntero nulo provocan problemas generales de confiabilidad de software. Sin embargo, si un atacante puede desencadenar intencionadamente la eliminación de la referencia del puntero nulo, es posible que también pueda usar la excepción resultante para omitir la lógica de seguridad o para hacer que la aplicación revele información de depuración, la cual será valiosa para la planificación de ataques posteriores.

Ejemplo 1: en el siguiente código, el programador presupone que el sistema tiene siempre definida una propiedad denominada "cmd". Si un usuario malintencionado puede controlar el entorno del programa para que no se defina "cmd", el programa genera una excepción de puntero nulo al intentar llamar al método Trim().


string cmd = null;
...
cmd = Environment.GetEnvironmentVariable("cmd");
cmd = cmd.Trim();
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 476
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [21] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.3
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.dotnet.null_dereference
Abstract
El programa podría desreferenciar un puntero nulo y, por lo tanto, ocasionar un error de segmentación.
Explanation
Las excepciones del puntero nulo normalmente se producen cuando una o varias de las hipótesis del programador se infringen. Hay al menos tres enfoques para este problema: comprobar después de desreferenciar, desreferenciar después de comprobar y desreferenciar después de almacenar. Se produce un error de desreferencia tras la comprobación cuando un programa desreferencia un puntero que puede ser null antes de comprobar si es null o no. Los errores de desreferencia tras la comprobación se producen cuando un programa realiza una comprobación explícita de null y procede a desreferenciar el puntero cuando se sabe que es null. Los errores de este tipo son normalmente el resultado de errores de escritura o descuidos del programador. Los errores de desreferencia tras el almacenamiento se producen cuando un programa establece de forma explícita un puntero en null y luego lo desreferencia. Con frecuencia, el error es el resultado de que un programador inicialice una variable en null cuando se declara.

La mayoría de los problemas del puntero nulo derivan en problemas generales de confiabilidad de software. Sin embargo, si un atacante puede desencadenar intencionadamente la desreferencia del puntero nulo, también puede ser capaz de usar la excepción resultante para eludir la lógica de seguridad y planear un ataque por denegación de servicio o hacer que la aplicación revele la información de depuración, la cual será valiosa para la planificación de ataques posteriores.

Ejemplo 1: en el código siguiente, el programador supone que la variable ptr no es NULL. Esta suposición se hace explícita cuando el programador desreferencia el puntero. Esta suposición luego queda contradicha cuando el programador contrasta ptr y NULL. Si ptr puede ser NULL al comprobarla en la instrucción if, entonces también puede ser NULL cuando se desreferencia y podría ocasionar un error de segmentación.


ptr->field = val;
...
if (ptr != NULL) {
...
}
Ejemplo 2: En el código siguiente, el programador confirma que la variable ptr es NULL y por eso lo desreferencia erróneamente. Si ptr es NULL cuando se comprueba en la instrucción if, entonces se produce una desreferencia de null que provocará un error de segmentación.


if (ptr == null) {
ptr->field = val;
...
}
Ejemplo 3: En el código siguiente, el programador olvida que la cadena '\0' es en realidad 0 o NULL; por lo tanto, puede desreferenciar un puntero nulo y provocar un fallo de segmentación.


if (ptr == '\0') {
*ptr = val;
...
}
Ejemplo 4: En el código siguiente, el programador establece explícitamente la variable ptr en NULL. A continuación, el programador desreferencia ptr antes de comprobar si en el objeto hay un valor null.


*ptr = NULL;
...
ptr->field = val;
...
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 476
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [21] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.3
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.cpp.null_dereference
Abstract
El programa puede eliminar potencialmente la referencia de un puntero nulo, generando una NullPointerException.
Explanation
Los punteros nulos suelen producirse debido a que se ha infringido alguna presuposición del programador.

La mayoría de los problemas con el puntero nulo provocan problemas generales de confiabilidad de software. Sin embargo, si un atacante puede desencadenar intencionadamente la eliminación de la referencia del puntero nulo, es posible que también pueda usar la excepción resultante para omitir la lógica de seguridad o para hacer que la aplicación revele información de depuración, la cual será valiosa para la planificación de ataques posteriores.

Ejemplo 1: en el siguiente código, el programador presupone que el sistema tiene siempre definida una propiedad denominada "cmd". Si un usuario malintencionado puede controlar el entorno del programa para que no se defina "cmd", el programa genera una excepción de puntero nulo al intentar llamar al método trim().


String val = null;
...
cmd = System.getProperty("cmd");
if (cmd)
val = util.translateCommand(cmd);
...
cmd = val.trim();
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 476
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [21] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.3
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.java.null_dereference
Abstract
Un método clone() debe llamar super.clone() para obtener el nuevo objeto.
Explanation
Todas las implementaciones de clone() deben obtener el nuevo objeto llamando super.clone(). Si una clase no puede seguir esta convención, un método clone() de subclase devolverá un objeto del tipo incorrecto.


Ejemplo 1: las dos clases siguientes demuestran un error introducido por no llamar super.clone(). Dada la forma en que Kibitzer implementa clone(), el método de clonación de FancyKibitzer devolverá un objeto de tipo Kibitzer en lugar de FancyKibitzer.


public class Kibitzer implements Cloneable {
public Object clone() throws CloneNotSupportedException {
Object returnMe = new Kibitzer();
...
}
}

public class FancyKibitzer extends Kibitzer
implements Cloneable {
public Object clone() throws CloneNotSupportedException {
Object returnMe = super.clone();
...
}
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 580
desc.structural.java.object_model_violation_erroneous_clone_method
Abstract
Esta clase ignora solo uno de equals() y hashCode().
Explanation
Se espera que los objetos Java obedezcan un número de invariables relacionadas con la igualdad. Una de estas invariables es que los objetos iguales deben tener códigos hash iguales. En otras palabras, si a.equals(b) == true, entonces a.hashCode() == b.hashCode().

En caso de no mantenerse esta invariable, es probable que se produzcan problemas si los objetos de esta clase se almacenan en una colección. Si los objetos de la clase en cuestión se usan como clave en una tabla hash o si se insertan en un Map o Set, es esencial que los objetos iguales tengan los códigos hash iguales.

Ejemplo 1: La clase siguiente ignora equals() pero no hashCode().


public class halfway() {
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
...
}
}
References
[1] D. H. Hovermeyer FindBugs User Manual
[2] MET09-J. Classes that define an equals() method must also define a hashCode() method CERT
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 581
desc.structural.java.object_model_violation_just_one_of_equals_hashcode_defined
Abstract
Esta clase ignora solo uno de saveState() y restoreState().
Explanation
Cualquier clase que herede la interfaz StateHolder debe implementar tanto saveState(javax.faces.context.FacesContext) como restoreState(javax.faces.context.FacesContext, java.lang.Object), o no implementar ninguna de ellos. Como estos dos métodos tienen una relación estrecha, no se pueden tener los métodos saveState(javax.faces.context.FacesContext) y restoreState(javax.faces.context.FacesContext, java.lang.Object) residiendo en diferentes niveles de la jerarquía de herencia.

Ejemplo 1: La siguiente clase define saveState() y no restoreState(), de forma que siempre está equivocada, independientemente de lo que pueda hacer cualquier clase

public class KibitzState implements StateHolder {
public Object saveState(FacesContext fc) {
...
}
}
References
[1] Sun Microsystems JavaDoc for StateHolder Interface
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 684
desc.structural.java.object_model_violation_just_one_of_restoreState_saveState_defined
Abstract
El uso de funciones en desuso u obsoletas podría indicar código sin atender.
Explanation
En general, a medida que evolucionan los lenguajes de programación, los métodos se quedan obsoletos de vez en cuando debido a:

- Los avances en el lenguaje
- El conocimiento mejorado del modo seguro y eficaz en que deben realizarse las
operaciones
- Los cambios en las convenciones que rigen determinadas operaciones

Las instrucciones que se quitan de un lenguaje normalmente se reemplazan por homólogos más recientes que realizan la misma tarea de alguna manera diferente y, con suerte, mejor.

En concreto, SAP ABAP ha evolucionado para incluir objetos ABAP, la extensión orientada a objetos de ABAP y para operar en un entorno Unicode compatible. Como resultado, se exige una sintaxis más estricta en las clases o los programas Unicode. Las construccionesobsoletas todavía están disponibles por razones de compatibilidad con versiones anteriores únicamente y solo se puede acceder a ellos fuera de las clases o en programas que no sean Unicode. Hay construcciones de reemplazo para todos los elementos de lenguaje obsoletos, que mejoran la eficiencia y legibilidad de los programas. Muchas especificaciones de memoria, longitud y tipo implícitas y ambiguas de la sintaxis obsoleta deben especificarse de un modo más preciso y explícito en la nueva sintaxis. Se recomienda que adopte la nueva sintaxis para que los programas se entiendan mejor, sean más robustos y más fáciles de mantener.


No todas las funciones están en desuso o se sustituyen porque supongan un riesgo de seguridad. Sin embargo, la presencia de una función obsoleta a menudo indica que el código que lo rodea se ha quedado sin atender y que puede estar en mal estado. La seguridad del software no ha sido una prioridad, o incluso una consideración, durante mucho tiempo. Si el programa utiliza las funciones en desuso u obsoletas, aumentará la probabilidad de que haya problemas de seguridad al acecho.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 477
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002617
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.5
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-2 Flaw Remediation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-2 Flaw Remediation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.6 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-111
desc.semantic.abap.obsolete
Abstract
El uso de funciones en desuso u obsoletas podría indicar código sin atender.
Explanation
A medida que evolucionan los lenguajes de programación, las funciones se vuelven a veces obsoletas debido a los siguientes motivos:

- Los avances en el lenguaje
- El conocimiento mejorado del modo seguro y eficaz en que deben realizarse las
operaciones
- Los cambios en las convenciones que rigen determinadas operaciones


Las funciones eliminadas de un lenguaje suelen reemplazarse por equivalentes más recientes que realizan la misma tarea de forma ligeramente diferente y es de esperar que también de forma más eficaz.
Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código crea un nuevo objeto SqlClientPermission, que controla el modo en el que los usuarios pueden conectarse a una base de datos. En este ejemplo, el programa transfiere false como segundo parámetro al constructor, que controla si los usuarios tienen permiso para establecer conexión con contraseñas en blanco. Al transferir el valor false a este parámetro, se indica que no deben permitirse contraseñas en blanco.


...
SCP = new SqlClientPermission(pstate, false);
...


Sin embargo, como el objeto PermissionState transferido como primer parámetro reemplaza cualquier valor transferido al segundo parámetro, el constructor permite el uso de contraseñas en blanco para las conexiones de base de datos, lo que contradice el segundo argumento. Para rechazar las contraseñas en blanco, el programa debe transferir PermissionState.None al primer parámetro del constructor. Debido a la ambigüedad en su funcionalidad, la versión de dos parámetros del constructor SqlClientPermission se ha dejado de utilizar en favor de la versión de un único parámetro, que transmite el mismo grado de información sin el riesgo de interpretaciones erróneas.

No todas las funciones están en desuso o se sustituyen porque supongan un riesgo de seguridad. Sin embargo, la presencia de una función obsoleta a menudo indica que el código que lo rodea se ha quedado sin atender y que puede estar en mal estado. La seguridad del software no ha sido una prioridad, o incluso una consideración, durante mucho tiempo. Si el programa utiliza las funciones en desuso u obsoletas, aumentará la probabilidad de que haya problemas de seguridad al acecho.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 477
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002617
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.5
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-2 Flaw Remediation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-2 Flaw Remediation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.6 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-111
desc.semantic.dotnet.obsolete
Abstract
El uso de funciones en desuso u obsoletas podría indicar código sin atender.
Explanation
A medida que evolucionan los lenguajes de programación, las funciones se vuelven a veces obsoletas debido a los siguientes motivos:

- Los avances en el lenguaje.
- Conocimiento mejorado de cómo las operaciones deben realizarse de forma eficaz y segura.
- Los cambios en las convenciones que rigen determinadas operaciones.

Las funciones que se eliminan suelen reemplazarse por equivalentes más recientes que realizan la misma tarea de forma ligeramente diferente y es de esperar que también de forma más eficaz.
Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código usa la función en desuso getpw() para comprobar que una contraseña de texto sin formato coincide con una contraseña cifrada del usuario. Si la contraseña es válida, la función establece result en 1; de lo contrario, se establece en 0.


...
getpw(uid, pwdline);
for (i=0; i<3; i++){
cryptpw=strtok(pwdline, ":");
pwdline=0;
}
result = strcmp(crypt(plainpw,cryptpw), cryptpw) == 0;
...


Aunque el código suele tener un comportamiento correcto, el uso de la función getpw() puede provocar problemas desde el punto de vista de la seguridad, ya que puede desbordar el búfer que pasa a su segundo parámetro. Debido a esta vulnerabilidad, getpw() se ha sustituido por getpwuid(), que realiza la misma búsqueda que getpw(), pero que devuelve un puntero a una estructura asignada estadísticamente para mitigar el riesgo.

No todas las funciones están en desuso o se sustituyen porque supongan un riesgo de seguridad. Sin embargo, la presencia de una función obsoleta a menudo indica que el código que lo rodea se ha quedado sin atender y que puede estar en mal estado. La seguridad del software no ha sido una prioridad, o incluso una consideración, durante mucho tiempo. Si el programa utiliza las funciones en desuso u obsoletas, aumentará la probabilidad de que haya problemas de seguridad al acecho.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 477
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002617
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.5
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-2 Flaw Remediation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-2 Flaw Remediation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.6 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-111
desc.semantic.cpp.obsolete
Abstract
El uso de funciones desusadas u obsoletas podría indicar código desatendido o el uso de una versión anticuada de ColdFusion.
Explanation
A medida que evolucionan los lenguajes de programación, los métodos se vuelven obsoletos de vez en cuando debido a:

- Los avances en el lenguaje
- El conocimiento mejorado del modo seguro y eficaz en que deben realizarse las
operaciones
- Los cambios en las convenciones que rigen determinadas operaciones

Los métodos que se quitan de un lenguaje normalmente se reemplazan por homólogos más recientes que realizan la misma tarea de alguna manera diferente y, con suerte, mejor.


No todas las funciones están en desuso o se sustituyen porque supongan un riesgo de seguridad. Sin embargo, la presencia de una función obsoleta a menudo indica que el código que lo rodea se ha quedado sin atender y que puede estar en mal estado. La seguridad del software no ha sido una prioridad, o incluso una consideración, durante mucho tiempo. Si el programa utiliza las funciones en desuso u obsoletas, aumentará la probabilidad de que haya problemas de seguridad al acecho.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 477
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002617
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.5
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-2 Flaw Remediation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-2 Flaw Remediation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.6 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-111
desc.semantic.cfml.obsolete
Abstract
El uso de funciones en desuso u obsoletas podría indicar código sin atender.
Explanation
A medida que evolucionan los lenguajes de programación, los métodos se vuelven obsoletos de vez en cuando debido a:

- Los avances en el lenguaje
- El conocimiento mejorado del modo seguro y eficaz en que deben realizarse las
operaciones
- Los cambios en las convenciones que rigen determinadas operaciones

Los métodos que se quitan de un lenguaje normalmente se reemplazan por homólogos más recientes que realizan la misma tarea de alguna manera diferente y, con suerte, mejor.
Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código crea un objeto de cadena a partir de una matriz de bytes y un valor que especifica los 8 bits principales de cada carácter Unicode de 16 bits.


...
String name = new String(nameBytes, highByte);
...


En este ejemplo, es posible que el constructor no pueda convertir correctamente bytes en caracteres según el juego de caracteres que se utilice para codificar la cadena representada por nameBytes. Debido a la evolución de los juegos de caracteres utilizados para codificar cadenas, este constructor quedó obsoleto y reemplazado por un constructor que acepta como uno de sus parámetros el nombre del charset que se utiliza para codificar los bytes para la conversión.

No todas las funciones están en desuso o se sustituyen porque supongan un riesgo de seguridad. Sin embargo, la presencia de una función obsoleta a menudo indica que el código que lo rodea se ha quedado sin atender y que puede estar en mal estado. La seguridad del software no ha sido una prioridad, o incluso una consideración, durante mucho tiempo. Si el programa utiliza las funciones en desuso u obsoletas, aumentará la probabilidad de que haya problemas de seguridad al acecho.
References
[1] MET02-J. Do not use deprecated or obsolete classes or methods CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 477
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002617
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.5
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-2 Flaw Remediation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-2 Flaw Remediation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.6 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-111
desc.semantic.java.obsolete
Abstract
El uso de funciones en desuso u obsoletas podría indicar código sin atender.
Explanation
A medida que evolucionan los lenguajes de programación, los métodos se vuelven obsoletos de vez en cuando debido a:

- Los avances en el lenguaje
- El conocimiento mejorado del modo seguro y eficaz en que deben realizarse las
operaciones
- Los cambios en las convenciones que rigen determinadas operaciones.

Los métodos que se quitan de un lenguaje normalmente se reemplazan por homólogos más recientes que realizan la misma tarea de alguna manera diferente y, con suerte, mejor.
Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código utiliza la stdlib Digest::HMAC, cuyo uso está explícitamente contraindicado en la documentación debido a su implicación accidental dentro de una versión.


require 'digest/hmac'

hmac = Digest::HMAC.new("foo", Digest::RMD160)
...
hmac.update(buf)
...


En este ejemplo, la clase Digest::HMAC dejó de utilizarse de forma inmediata al estar implicada en una inclusión accidental dentro de una versión. Debido a la posibilidad de que no funcione según lo previsto a causa del código experimental o no probado adecuadamente, su uso está fuertemente contraindicado, especialmente si consideramos la relación que tienen los códigos HMAC con la funcionalidad criptográfica.

No todas las funciones están en desuso o se sustituyen porque supongan un riesgo de seguridad. Sin embargo, la presencia de una función obsoleta a menudo indica que el código que lo rodea se ha quedado sin atender y que puede estar en mal estado. La seguridad del software no ha sido una prioridad, o incluso una consideración, durante mucho tiempo. Si el programa utiliza las funciones en desuso u obsoletas, aumentará la probabilidad de que haya problemas de seguridad al acecho.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 477
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002617
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.5
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-2 Flaw Remediation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-2 Flaw Remediation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.6 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-111
desc.structural.ruby.obsolete
Abstract
Las funciones, checkCallingOrSelfPermission () o checkCallingOrSelfUriPermission (), deben usarse con cuidado ya que permiten que el programa que realiza la llamada, sin los permisos requeridos o sin permisos, eluda la verificación de permisos, utilizando los permisos de su aplicación.
Explanation
La función checkCallingOrSelfPermission() o checkCallingOrSelfUriPermission() determina si el programa que realiza la llamada cuenta con el permiso necesario para acceder a determinado servicio o URI. Sin embargo, estas funciones deben utilizarse con cuidado, ya que pueden conceder acceso a aplicaciones malintencionadas, que carecen de los permisos correspondientes, adoptando los permisos de las aplicaciones.

En otras palabras, una aplicación malintencionada sin los permisos correspondientes puede omitir la comprobación de permisos mediante la adopción del permiso de la aplicación para obtener acceso a recursos a los que, de lo contrario, no podría acceder. Esto provoca lo que se conoce como ataque de tipo "confused deputy".
References
[1] Designing for Security Android
[2] Context: Android Developers Android
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 732
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.4.5 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 863
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.structural.java.often_misused_android_permission_check
Abstract
Los atacantes pueden reemplazar las entradas DNS. Por motivos de seguridad, no confíe en nombres DNS.
Explanation
Muchos servidores DNS son susceptibles de sufrir ataques, por eso debe suponer que su software se ejecutará alguna vez en un entorno con un servidor DNS afectado. Si los atacantes están autorizados a hacer actualizaciones de DNS (a veces denominado envenenamiento de la caché del DNS), pueden redirigir su tráfico de red a través de sus equipos o hacer que parezca que sus direcciones IP forman parte de su dominio. No base la seguridad de su sistema en nombres DNS.
Ejemplo 1: El siguiente ejemplo de código utiliza una búsqueda DNS para determinar si una solicitud entrante es de un host de confianza o no. Si un atacante es capaz de dañar la caché DNS, puede obtener un estatus de confianza.


IPAddress hostIPAddress = IPAddress.Parse(RemoteIpAddress);
IPHostEntry hostInfo = Dns.GetHostByAddress(hostIPAddress);
if (hostInfo.HostName.EndsWith("trustme.com")) {
trusted = true;
}


Las direcciones IP son más confiables que los nombres DNS, pero también se pueden reemplazar. Los atacantes pueden falsificar fácilmente las direcciones IP de origen de los paquetes que envían, aunque los paquetes de respuesta volverán a la dirección IP falsificada. Para ver los paquetes de respuesta, el atacante tiene que examinar el tráfico entre el equipo víctima y la dirección IP falsificada. A fin de completar el examen necesario, los atacantes normalmente intentan ubicarse en la misma subred que el equipo víctima. Los atacantes podrían ser capaces de evitar este requisito empleando enrutamiento de origen, aunque el enrutamiento de origen esté deshabilitado actualmente en gran parte de Internet. En resumen, la verificación de las direcciones IP puede ser una parte útil de un esquema de autenticación, pero no debe ser el único factor necesario para la autenticación.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 247, CWE ID 292, CWE ID 558, CWE ID 807
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000877
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-11 Re-Authentication (P0), MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance (P2), SC-23 Session Authenticity (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance, SC-11 Trusted Path, SC-23 Session Authenticity
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A7 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A2 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A2 Broken Authentication
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.10
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.10
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[29] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3460 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3460 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3460 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3460 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3460 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3460 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3460 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001970 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001970 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001970 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authentication (WASC-01)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authentication
desc.semantic.dotnet.often_misused_authentication
Abstract
La función getlogin() es fácil de reemplazar. Por eso, no confíe en el nombre que devuelva.
Explanation
Se supone que la función getlogin() devuelve una cadena que contiene el nombre del usuario registrado actualmente en el terminal. Sin embargo, un atacante podría hacer que getlogin() devuelva el nombre de todos los usuarios registrado en el equipo. No confíe en el nombre devuelto por getlogin() cuando tome decisiones relacionadas con la seguridad.
Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente se basa en getlogin() para determinar si un usuario es de confianza o no. Es fácil de subvertir.


pwd = getpwnam(getlogin());
if (isTrustedGroup(pwd->pw_gid)) {
allow();
} else {
deny();
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 247, CWE ID 292, CWE ID 558, CWE ID 807
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000877
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-11 Re-Authentication (P0), MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance (P2), SC-23 Session Authenticity (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance, SC-11 Trusted Path, SC-23 Session Authenticity
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A7 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A2 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A2 Broken Authentication
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.10
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.10
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[29] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3460 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3460 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3460 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3460 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3460 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3460 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3460 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001970 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001970 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001970 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authentication (WASC-01)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authentication
desc.semantic.cpp.often_misused_authentication.getlogin
Abstract
Los atacantes pueden reemplazar las entradas DNS. Por motivos de seguridad, no confíe en nombres DNS.
Explanation
Muchos servidores DNS son susceptibles de sufrir ataques, por eso debe suponer que su software se ejecutará alguna vez en un entorno con un servidor DNS afectado. Si los atacantes están autorizados a hacer actualizaciones de DNS (a veces denominado envenenamiento de la caché del DNS), pueden redirigir su tráfico de red a través de sus equipos o hacer que parezca que sus direcciones IP forman parte de su dominio. No base la seguridad de su sistema en nombres DNS.
Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente usa una búsqueda DNS para determinar si una solicitud entrante procede de un host confiable. Si un atacante es capaz de dañar la caché DNS, puede obtener un estatus de confianza.


String ip = request.getRemoteAddr();
InetAddress addr = InetAddress.getByName(ip);
if (addr.getCanonicalHostName().endsWith("trustme.com")) {
trusted = true;
}


Las direcciones IP son más confiables que los nombres DNS, pero también se pueden reemplazar. Los atacantes pueden falsificar fácilmente las direcciones IP de origen de los paquetes que envían, aunque los paquetes de respuesta volverán a la dirección IP falsificada. Para ver los paquetes de respuesta, el atacante tiene que examinar el tráfico entre el equipo víctima y la dirección IP falsificada. A fin de completar el examen necesario, los atacantes normalmente intentan ubicarse en la misma subred que el equipo víctima. Los atacantes podrían ser capaces de evitar este requisito empleando enrutamiento de origen, aunque el enrutamiento de origen esté deshabilitado actualmente en gran parte de Internet. En resumen, la verificación de las direcciones IP puede ser una parte útil de un esquema de autenticación, pero no debe ser el único factor necesario para la autenticación.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 247, CWE ID 292, CWE ID 558, CWE ID 807
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000877
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-11 Re-Authentication (P0), MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance (P2), SC-23 Session Authenticity (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance, SC-11 Trusted Path, SC-23 Session Authenticity
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A7 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A2 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A2 Broken Authentication
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.10
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.10
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[29] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3460 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3460 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3460 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3460 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3460 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3460 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3460 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001970 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001970 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001970 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authentication (WASC-01)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authentication
desc.semantic.java.often_misused_authentication
Abstract
El método Boolean.getBoolean() se confunde a menudo con las llamadas a métodos Boolean.valueOf() o Boolean.parseBoolean().
Explanation
En la mayoría de los casos, una llamada a Boolean.getBoolean() se usa a menudo incorrectamente, ya que se presupone que devuelve el valor booleano representado por el argumento de cadena especificado. Sin embargo, como se indica en el método Boolean.getBoolean(String) de Javadoc: "Devuelve el valor 'true' solo si existe la propiedad del sistema a la que el argumento ha asignado un nombre y esta es igual a la cadena 'true'".

En la mayoría de los casos, lo que el desarrollador tenía intención de usar era una llamada al método Boolean.valueOf(String) o Boolean.parseBoolean(String).
Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código no presenta el comportamiento previsto. Imprimirá "FALSE", ya que Boolean.getBoolean(String) no convierte un primitivo de cadena, sino únicamente la propiedad del sistema.

...
String isValid = "true";
if ( Boolean.getBoolean(isValid) ) {
System.out.println("TRUE");
}
else {
System.out.println("FALSE");
}
...
References
[1] Class Boolean Oracle
[2] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[3] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[4] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
desc.semantic.java.often_misused_boolean_getboolean