Reino: API Abuse

Un API es un contrato entre un autor de llamada y un receptor de llamada. Las formas de abuso de API más comunes los produce el autor de llamada cuando no consigue atender su fin de este contrato. Por ejemplo, si un programa no consigue llamar chdir() después de llamar chroot(), se viola el contrato que especifica cómo cambiar el directorio de origen activo de una forma segura. Otro buen ejemplo de un abuso de manual es esperar que el receptor devuelva una información de DNS de confianza al autor de llamada. En este caso, el autor de llamada abusa el API del receptor haciendo determinadas suposiciones sobre su comportamiento (que el valor de retorno se puede usar con fines de autenticación). También se puede violar el contrato entre el autor de llamada y el receptor desde el otro lado. Por ejemplo, si un codificador envía SecureRandom y devuelve un valor no aleatorio, se viola el contrato.

6 elementos encontrados
Debilidades
Abstract
La clase de modelo tiene propiedades requeridas y propiedades no requeridas y, por tanto, pueden ser susceptibles de ataques con cantidad excesiva de operaciones POST.
Explanation
El uso de una clase de modelo que tiene propiedades requeridas (marcadas con el atributo [Required]) y propiedades opcionales (no marcadas con el atributo [Required]) pueden dar lugar a problemas si un usuario malintencionado comunica una solicitud que contiene más datos de los esperados.

El marco ASP.NET MVC intentará enlazar parámetros de solicitud en las propiedades del modelo.

El hecho de tener requisitos mixtos sin comunicar explícitamente qué parámetros se van a enlazar con modelos puede indicar que hay propiedades de modelos para el uso interno, pero pueden estar controlados por un usuario malintencionado.

El siguiente código define una posible clase de modelos que tiene propiedades con [Required] y propiedades sin [Required]:


public class MyModel
{
[Required]
public String UserName { get; set; }

[Required]
public String Password { get; set; }

public Boolean IsAdmin { get; set; }
}


Si algún parámetro opcional puede cambiar el comportamiento de una aplicación, un usuario malintencionado podría cambiar ese comportamiento comunicando un parámetro opcional en una solicitud.
References
[1] Input Validation vs. Model Validation in ASP.NET MVC
[2] BindAttribute Class
[3] RequiredAttribute Class
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 345
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002422
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 13.2.6 RESTful Web Service Verification Requirements (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 A2 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.structural.dotnet.aspnet_mvc_bad_practices_mixed_required_model
Abstract
La clase de modelos tiene una propiedad requerida que no admite valores NULL y, por lo tanto, es susceptible a los ataques con cantidad reducida de operaciones POST.
Explanation
El uso de una clase de modelos con propiedades requeridas que no admiten valores NULL (marcadas con el atributo [Required]) pueden dar lugar a problemas si un usuario malintencionado comunica una solicitud que contiene menos datos de los esperados.

El marco ASP.NET MVC intentará enlazar parámetros de solicitud en las propiedades del modelo.

Si un modelo tiene un parámetro requerido que no admite valores NULL y un usuario malintencionado no comunica ese parámetro requerido en una solicitud, es decir, el usuario malintencionado usa un ataque con cantidad reducida de operaciones POST, la propiedad tendrá el valor predeterminado (normalmente cero), que cumplirá con el atributo de validación [Required]. Esto podría producir un comportamiento inesperado de la aplicación.

El código siguiente define una posible clase de modelos que tiene una enumeración requerida que no admite valores NULL:


public enum ArgumentOptions
{
OptionA = 1,
OptionB = 2
}

public class Model
{
[Required]
public String Argument { get; set; }

[Required]
public ArgumentOptions Rounding { get; set; }
}
References
[1] Input Validation vs. Model Validation in ASP.NET MVC
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 345
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002422
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 13.2.6 RESTful Web Service Verification Requirements (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 A2 Injection Flaws
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.structural.dotnet.aspnet_mvc_bad_practices_required_non_nullable_in_model
Abstract
La clase de modelos tiene una propiedad requerida y es el tipo de un miembro opcional de un tipo de modelo principal y por tanto puede ser susceptible a los ataques con cantidad reducida de operaciones POST.
Explanation
Si un clase de modelos tiene una propiedad requerida y el tipo de un miembro opcional de una clase de modelos principal, puede ser susceptible a ataques con cantidad reducida de operaciones POST si un usuario malintencionado comunica una solicitud que contiene menos de los que se esperan.

El marco ASP.NET MVC intentará enlazar parámetros de solicitud en las propiedades del modelo, incluidos los submodelos.

Si un submodelo es opcional, es decir, el modelo principal tiene una propiedad sin el atributo [Required], y si un usuario malintencionado no comunica ese submodelo, la propiedad principal tendrá un valor null y los campos requeridos del modelo secundario no estarán confirmados por la validación del modelo. Esta es una forma de ataque con cantidad reducida de operaciones POST.

Tenga en cuenta las siguientes definiciones de clases de modelos:


public class ChildModel
{
public ChildModel()
{
}

[Required]
public String RequiredProperty { get; set; }
}

public class ParentModel
{
public ParentModel()
{
}

public ChildModel Child { get; set; }
}


Si un usuario malintencionado no comunica un valor para la propiedad ParentModel.Child, la propiedad ChildModel.RequiredProperty tendrá un [Required] no confirmado. Esto puede producir resultados no esperados y no deseados.
References
[1] Input Validation vs. Model Validation in ASP.NET MVC
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 345
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002422
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 13.2.6 RESTful Web Service Verification Requirements (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 A2 Injection Flaws
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.structural.dotnet.aspnet_mvc_bad_practices_optional_submodel_with_required_property
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
El enlazador de marco utilizado para vincular los parámetros de solicitud HTTP a la clase de modelo se basa en formateadores de entrada cuando se utiliza la anotación [FromBody].
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.

En este caso, cuando la anotación [FromBody] se aplica a un parámetro complejo de una acción, y después a cualquier otro atributo vinculante, como [Bind] o [BindNever] aplicados al tipo de parámetro o cualquiera de sus campos se ignoran efectivamente, lo que significa que la mitigación mediante anotaciones vinculantes es imposible.

Ejemplo 1: En una aplicación web ASP.NET Core MVC, cuando la anotación [FromBody] se aplica a un parámetro de una acción, el enlazador de modelos intenta vincular automáticamente todos los parámetros especificados en el cuerpo de la solicitud mediante un formateador de entrada. De forma predeterminada, el enlazador utiliza el formateador de entrada JSON para intentar vincular todos los parámetros posibles que provienen del cuerpo de la solicitud:


[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create([FromBody] Product p)
{
return View(p.Name);
}


Tenga en cuenta que cualquier anotación vinculante como [Bind] o [BindNever] aplicada al tipo Product que sigue se ignoran debido a que se utilizan formateadores de entrada cuando la anotación [FromBody] está presente.


public class Product
{
...
public string Name { get; set; }
public bool IsAdmin { get; set; }
...
}
References
[1] Microsoft [FromBody] attribute
[2] OWASP Mass assignment
[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 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.structural.dotnet.mass_assignment_request_parameters_bound_via_input_formatters