184 elementos encontrados
Debilidades
Abstract
El atributo unsecure especifica una lista de atributos cuyos valores se pueden establecer en el cliente.
Explanation
Los valores de atributos de los componentes de Oracle ADF Faces solo se pueden establecer normalmente en el servidor. Sin embargo, diversos componentes permiten al desarrollador definir una lista de atributos que se puede establecer en el cliente. El atributo unsecure de estos componentes puede especificar una lista de este tipo.

El único atributo que puede aparecer actualmente dentro del atributo unsecure es disabled; este permite que el cliente defina los componentes que se habilitarán y aquellos que no. Nunca es recomendable dejar que el cliente controle los valores de los atributos que solo deben establecerse en el servidor.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código muestra un componente inputText que recopila información de contraseñas del usuario y utiliza el atributo unsecure.


...
<af:inputText id="pwdBox"
label="#{resources.PWD}"
value=""#{userBean.password}
unsecure="disabled"
secret="true"
required="true"/>
...
References
[1] Oracle ADF Faces Tag Reference
[2] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[3] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[4] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
desc.structural.java.adf_faces_bad_practices_unsecure_attribute
Abstract
La aplicación permite que se usen cookies para el protocolo file://, lo que podría tener implicaciones de seguridad no deseadas.
Explanation
Las cookies son un mecanismo exclusivo de HTTP según RFC 2109. No se debe pretender que funcionen con protocolos diferentes de HTTP, incluido file://. No está claro cuál debería ser su comportamiento, ni qué reglas se deben aplicar para compartimentar la seguridad. Por ejemplo, ¿los archivos HTML que se descargan en el disco local desde Internet deben compartir las mismas cookies que cualquier código HTML instalado localmente?
References
[1] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[2] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
desc.semantic.java.android_bad_practices_use_of_file_scheme_cookies
Abstract
La aplicación invoca las API internas u ocultas.
Explanation
No se recomienda a los desarrolladores crear las aplicaciones con API no documentadas u ocultas. No hay garantía de que Google no quite o cambie dichas API en el futuro y, por lo tanto, estas se deben evitar. También se debe evitar el uso de estos métodos o campos porque constituyen un riesgo y podrían dañar la aplicación.
References
[1] Google Restrictions on non-SDK interfaces
[2] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
desc.structural.cpp.android_bad_practices_use_of_internal_apis
Abstract
La aplicación invoca las API internas u ocultas.
Explanation
No se recomienda a los desarrolladores crear las aplicaciones con API no documentadas u ocultas. No hay garantía de que Google no quite o cambie dichas API en el futuro y, por lo tanto, estas se deben evitar. También se debe evitar el uso de estos métodos o campos porque constituyen un riesgo y podrían dañar la aplicación.
References
[1] Google Restrictions on non-SDK interfaces
[2] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
desc.structural.java.android_bad_practices_use_of_internal_apis
Abstract
El código hace referencia al objeto Camera una vez que se ha liberado.
Explanation
El código intenta usar el objeto Camera una vez que se ha liberado. Todas las referencias adicionales al objeto Camera sin que se vuelva a adquirir el recurso generarán una excepción y pueden provocar que se bloquee la aplicación si no se detecta la excepción.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código utiliza un botón de conmutación para activar o desactivar la vista previa de la cámara. Después de que el usuario pulse el botón una vez, la vista previa de la cámara se detiene y el recurso de cámara se libera. Sin embargo, si este pulsa de nuevo el botón, se llamará a startPreview() en el objeto Camera liberado anteriormente.


public class ReuseCameraActivity extends Activity {
private Camera cam;

...
private class CameraButtonListener implements OnClickListener {
public void onClick(View v) {
if (toggle) {
cam.stopPreview();
cam.release();
}
else {
cam.startPreview();
}
toggle = !toggle;
}
}
...
}
References
[1] Camera, Android Developers
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 416
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [1] CWE ID 119, [7] CWE ID 416
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [5] CWE ID 119, [8] CWE ID 416
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [7] CWE ID 416
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [7] CWE ID 416
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [4] CWE ID 416
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [8] CWE ID 416, [12] CWE ID 020, [20] CWE ID 119
[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 Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.java.android_bad_practices_use_of_released_camera_resource
Abstract
El código hace referencia al objeto multimedia de Android una vez que se ha liberado.
Explanation
El código intenta usar el objeto multimedia una vez que se ha liberado. Todas las referencias adicionales al objeto multimedia sin que se vuelva a adquirir el recurso generarán una excepción y pueden provocar que se bloquee la aplicación si no se detecta la excepción.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código usa un botón de pausa para activar o desactivar la reproducción multimedia. Después de que el usuario pulse el botón una vez, la canción o el vídeo actuales se detendrán temporalmente y se liberará el recurso de cámara. Sin embargo, si este pulsa de nuevo el botón, se llamará a start() en el recurso multimedia liberado anteriormente.


public class ReuseMediaPlayerActivity extends Activity {
private MediaPlayer mp;

...
private class PauseButtonListener implements OnClickListener {
public void onClick(View v) {
if (paused) {
mp.pause();
mp.release();
}
else {
mp.start();
}
paused = !paused;
}
}
...
}
References
[1] Media Player, Android Developers
[2] Audio Capture, Android Developers
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 416
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [1] CWE ID 119, [7] CWE ID 416
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [5] CWE ID 119, [8] CWE ID 416
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [7] CWE ID 416
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [7] CWE ID 416
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [4] CWE ID 416
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [8] CWE ID 416, [12] CWE ID 020, [20] CWE ID 119
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.java.android_bad_practices_use_of_released_media_resource
Abstract
El código hace referencia al controlador de base de datos de Android una vez que se ha liberado.
Explanation
El código intenta usar el controlador de base de datos SQLite de Android una vez que se ha cerrado. Todas las referencias adicionales al controlador sin que se restablezca la conexión a la base de datos generarán una excepción y pueden provocar que se bloquee la aplicación si no se detecta la excepción.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código puede proceder de un programa que almacena temporalmente valores de usuario en la memoria caché, pero puede llamar a flushUpdates() para confirmar los cambios en el disco. El método cierra correctamente el controlador de base de datos tras escribir las actualizaciones en la base de datos. Sin embargo, cuando se llama de nuevo a flushUpdates(), se hace referencia de nuevo al objeto de base de datos sin reinicializarlo.


public class ReuseDBActivity extends Activity {
private myDBHelper dbHelper;
private SQLiteDatabase db;

@Override
public void onCreate(Bundle state) {
...
db = dbHelper.getWritableDatabase();
...
}
...

private void flushUpdates() {
db.insert(cached_data); // flush cached data
dbHelper.close();
}
...
}
References
[1] Data Storage, Android Developers
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 416
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [1] CWE ID 119, [7] CWE ID 416
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [5] CWE ID 119, [8] CWE ID 416
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [7] CWE ID 416
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [7] CWE ID 416
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [4] CWE ID 416
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [8] CWE ID 416, [12] CWE ID 020, [20] CWE ID 119
[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 Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.java.android_bad_practices_use_of_released_sqlite_resource
Abstract
Se ha incluido JavaScript no minimizado en este archivo. Microsoft recomienda incluir las versiones minimizadas de las bibliotecas JavaScript por motivos de rendimiento.
Explanation
La minimización mejora los tiempos de carga de páginas para las aplicaciones que incluyen archivos JavaScript al reducir su tamaño. La minimización hace referencia al proceso de eliminación de espacios en blanco, comentarios, signos de punto y coma, y llaves acortando el nombre de las variables locales y eliminando código inaccesible.

Ejemplo 1: en el siguiente código ASPX se incluye la versión no minimizada de la biblioteca jQuery de Microsoft:


...
<script src="http://applicationserver.application.com/lib/jquery/jquery-1.4.2.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
...
References
[1] Optimizations for Improving Load Times Microsoft
[2] Introduction to CSS Minification Microsoft
[3] Microsoft AJAX Minifier Microsoft
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A3 Malicious File Execution
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 098
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
desc.semantic.dotnet.asp_net_bad_practices_unminified_code
Abstract
La aplicación especifica incorrectamente el middleware de la política de cookies de ASP.NET.
Explanation
El middleware ASP.NET Core que no se agrega a la canalización de middleware en el orden correcto no funcionará según lo previsto, dejando la aplicación expuesta a una variedad de problemas de seguridad.

Ejemplo 1: El método UseCookiePolicy() agrega el middleware de política de cookies a la canalización de middleware, lo que permite políticas de cookies personalizadas. Cuando se especifica en el orden incorrecto, como se muestra, se ignorará cualquier política de cookies establecida por el programador.


...
var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(...);
var app = builder.Build(...);
app.UseStaticFiles();
app.UseRouting();
app.UseSession();
app.UseAuthentication();
app.UseAuthorization();
app.UseEndpoints(endpoints =>
{
...
}

app.UseCookiePolicy();
...
References
[1] Rick Anderson, Steve Smith ASP.NET Core Middleware Microsoft
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 696, CWE ID 1188, CWE ID 565
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP, SC
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.1 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A9 Insecure Communications
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.10
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.3.1.4, Requirement 6.5.9
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective 2.3 - Secure Defaults
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective 2.3 - Secure Defaults, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authentication
desc.controlflow.dotnet.asp_dotnet_middleware_out_of_order_default_cookie_configuration
Abstract
La aplicación especifica incorrectamente el middleware de redirección HTTPS ASP.NET predeterminado.
Explanation
El middleware ASP.NET Core que no se agrega a la canalización de middleware en el orden correcto no funcionará según lo previsto, dejando la aplicación expuesta a una variedad de problemas de seguridad.

Ejemplo 1: El método UseHttpsRedirection() agrega middleware de redirección HTTPS a la canalización de middleware, lo que permite la redirección de solicitudes HTTP no seguras a una solicitud HTTPS segura. Cuando se especifica en el orden incorrecto, como se muestra, no se producirá una redirección HTTPS significativa antes de procesar la solicitud a través del middleware que se muestra antes de la redirección. Esto permitirá que la aplicación procese las solicitudes HTTP antes de redirigirlas a la conexión HTTPS segura.


...
var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(...);
var app = builder.Build(...);
app.UseStaticFiles();
app.UseRouting();
app.UseSession();
app.UseAuthentication();
app.UseAuthorization();
app.UseEndpoints(endpoints =>
{
...
}

app.UseHttpsRedirection();
...
References
[1] Rick Anderson, Steve Smith ASP.NET Core Middleware Microsoft
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 696, CWE ID 200, CWE ID 311, CWE ID 319
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000068, CCI-001453, CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422, CCI-002890, CCI-003123
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SC
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-17 Remote Access (P1), MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance (P2), SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-17 Remote Access, MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance, SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M3 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M5 Insecure Communication
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A9 Insecure Communications
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A9 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.3.1.4, Requirement 6.5.9
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 319
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection (WASC-04)
desc.controlflow.dotnet.asp_dotnet_middleware_out_of_order_insecure_transport
Abstract
La aplicación especifica incorrectamente el middleware de registro de ASP.NET Core.
Explanation
El middleware ASP.NET Core que no se agrega a la canalización de middleware en el orden correcto no funcionará según lo previsto, dejando la aplicación expuesta a una variedad de problemas de seguridad.

Ejemplo 1: El método UseHttpLogging() agrega middleware de registro HTTP a la canalización de middleware que permite que los componentes de middleware se registren. Cuando se especifica en el orden incorrecto, como se muestra, no se agrega ningún middleware a la canalización antes de que se registre la llamada a UseHttpLogging().


...
var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(...);
var app = builder.Build(...);
app.UseStaticFiles();
app.UseRouting();
app.UseSession();
app.UseAuthentication();
app.UseAuthorization();
app.UseEndpoints(endpoints =>
{
...
}

app.UseHttpLogging();
...
Ejemplo 2: El método UseWC3Logging() agrega el middleware de registro W3C a la canalización de middleware que permite que los componentes de middleware se registren. Cuando se especifica en el orden incorrecto, como se muestra, no se agrega ningún middleware a la canalización antes de que se registre la llamada a UseWC3Logging().


...
var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(...);
var app = builder.Build(...);
app.UseStaticFiles();
app.UseRouting();
app.UseSession();
app.UseAuthentication();
app.UseAuthorization();
app.UseEndpoints(endpoints =>
{
...
}

app.UseWC3Logging();
...
References
[1] Rick Anderson, Steve Smith ASP.NET Core Middleware Microsoft
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 696, CWE ID 778
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000172
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), AU-12 Audit Generation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-10 Non-Repudiation, AU-12 Audit Record Generation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 7.1.3 Log Content Requirements (L2 L3), 7.1.4 Log Content Requirements (L2 L3), 7.2.1 Log Processing Requirements (L2 L3), 7.2.2 Log Processing Requirements (L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration, A10 Insufficient Logging and Monitoring
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10, Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.1.4, Requirement 10.2.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.1.4, Requirement 10.2.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 8.2 - Activity Tracking
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 8.2 - Activity Tracking
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 8.2 - Activity Tracking
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.controlflow.dotnet.asp_dotnet_middleware_out_of_order_insufficient_logging
Abstract
La acción del controlador puede beneficiarse de estar limitado a aceptar solo uno de los siguientes verbos HTTP: Post, Put, Patch o Delete.
Explanation
Las acciones del controlador de ASP.NET MVC que modifican datos escribiendo, actualizando o eliminando podrían beneficiarse de estar limitado a aceptar uno de los siguientes verbos HTTP: Post, Put, Patch o Delete. Esto aumenta la dificultad de forgery de solicitudes entre sitios, ya que el clic accidental de vínculos no hará que la acción se ejecute.

La siguiente acción del controlador acepta de manera predeterminada cualquier verbo y puede ser susceptible de falsificación de solicitud entre sitios:


public ActionResult UpdateWidget(Model model)
{
// ... controller logic
}
References
[1] Don't use Delete Links because they create Security Holes
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 352
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [9] CWE ID 352
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [9] CWE ID 352
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [9] CWE ID 352
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [9] CWE ID 352
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [9] CWE ID 352
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [4] CWE ID 352
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-001941, CCI-001942
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-2 Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users) (P1), SC-23 Session Authenticity (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-2 Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users), SC-23 Session Authenticity, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 4.2.2 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 13.2.3 RESTful Web Service Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A5 Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A5 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A8 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.9
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.9
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.9
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 352
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 352
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 352
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3585 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3585 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3585 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3585 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3585 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3585 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3585 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Request Forgery (WASC-09)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Request Forgery
desc.structural.dotnet.aspnet_mvc_bad_practices_action_not_post_only
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
La aplicación solicita a los usuarios que introduzcan sus huellas digitales sin proporcionar una justificación.
Explanation
De acuerdo con las directivas de Apple, la aplicación siempre debe explicar a los usuarios por qué se requieren sus huellas digitales. En caso contrario, puede confundirse al usuario o incluso hacer que la aplicación se rechace en AppStore.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código usa Touch ID para autenticar al usuario, pero no proporciona un motivo localizado que explique por qué se requiere la autenticación:


[context evaluatePolicy:LAPolicyDeviceOwnerAuthenticationWithBiometrics localizedReason:nil
reply:^(BOOL success, NSError *error) {
if (success) {
NSLog(@"Auth was OK");
}
}];
References
[1] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[2] Keychain and Authentication with Touch ID Apple
[3] https://developer.apple.com/reference/localauthentication/lacontext Apple
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1, MASVS-AUTH-2
desc.structural.objc.biometric_authentication_missing_operation_message
Abstract
La aplicación solicita a los usuarios que introduzcan sus huellas digitales sin proporcionar una justificación.
Explanation
De acuerdo con las directivas de Apple, la aplicación siempre debe explicar a los usuarios por qué se requieren sus huellas digitales. En caso contrario, puede confundirse al usuario o incluso hacer que la aplicación se rechace en AppStore.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código usa Touch ID para autenticar al usuario, pero no proporciona un motivo localizado que explique por qué se requiere la autenticación:


context.evaluatePolicy(LAPolicy.DeviceOwnerAuthenticationWithBiometrics, localizedReason: "", reply: { (success, error) -> Void in
if (success) {
print("Auth was OK");
}
else {
print("Error received: %d", error!);
}
})
References
[1] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[2] Keychain and Authentication with Touch ID Apple
[3] https://developer.apple.com/reference/localauthentication/lacontext Apple
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1, MASVS-AUTH-2
desc.structural.swift.biometric_authentication_missing_operation_message
Abstract
Una consulta Castor que no sea de solo lectura puede tener implicaciones de rendimiento.
Explanation
Incluso aunque Castor cree un bloqueo en un objeto, eso no impide que otros subprocesos lean o escriban en él. Las consultas de solo lectura son también unas siete veces más rápidas en comparación con el modo compartido predeterminado.

Ejemplo 1: el ejemplo siguiente especifica el modo de consulta como SHARED, que permite tener acceso de lectura y escritura.

results = query.execute(Database.SHARED);
References
[1] ExoLab Group Castor JDO - Best practice
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 732
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.5 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[4] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 7.2.2
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[14] 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
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
desc.structural.java.castor_bad_practices_query_mode_not_read_only
Abstract
La consulta Castor no define de forma explícita un modo de consulta.
Explanation
De forma predeterminada, Castor ejecuta consultas en modo compartido. Como el modo compartido permite acceso de lectura y escritura, no está claro para qué tipo de operación está destinada la consulta. Si el objeto se va a usar en un contexto de solo lectura, el acceso compartido agrega una sobrecarga de rendimiento innecesaria.

Ejemplo 1: el ejemplo siguiente no especifica un modo de consulta.

results = query.execute(); //missing query mode
References
[1] ExoLab Group Castor JDO - Best practice
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 732
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.5 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[4] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 7.2.2
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[14] 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
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
desc.semantic.java.castor_bad_practices_unspecified_query_mode
Abstract
El programa usa un operador aritmético o un valor booleano, que podría no conseguir lo que el programador tiene pensado.
Explanation
Las operaciones aritméticas no actúan del mismo modo en valores booleanos a como lo harían en valores integrales, lo que podría ocasionar un comportamiento inesperado.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 480
[2] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 13.4, Rule 14.3
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 13.4, Rule 14.3
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 5-0-13, Rule 6-2-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 7.0.1, Rule 8.14.1, Rule 8.18.2
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
desc.structural.cpp.code_correctness_arithmetic_operation_on_boolean
Abstract
Convertir una matriz de byte en String puede suponer una pérdida de datos.
Explanation
Cuando los datos de una matriz de bytes se convierten en String, no se especifica lo que ocurrirá con los datos que quedan fuera del conjunto de caracteres correspondiente. Esto puede suponer una pérdida de datos o una disminución en el nivel de seguridad cuando se necesitan datos binarios para garantizar que se cumplen las medidas de seguridad apropiadas.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código convierte los datos en una cadena para crear un hash.


...
FileInputStream fis = new FileInputStream(myFile);
byte[] byteArr = byte[BUFSIZE];
...
int count = fis.read(byteArr);
...
String fileString = new String(byteArr);
String fileSHA256Hex = DigestUtils.sha256Hex(fileString);
// use fileSHA256Hex to validate file
...


Si el tamaño del archivo es menor que BUFSIZE, funcionará siempre y cuando la información de myFile se encuentre codificada igual que el conjunto de caracteres predeterminado. Sin embargo, si utiliza una codificación diferente o es un archivo binario, se perderá información. A su vez, esto provocará que el hash de SHA resultante no sea de confianza y que sea más fácil causar conflictos, especialmente si hay algún dato fuera del conjunto de caracteres predeterminado que se represente con el mismo valor, como un signo de interrogación.
References
[1] STR03-J. Do not encode noncharacter data as a string CERT
[2] When 'EFBFBD' and Friends Come Knocking: Observations of Byte Array to String Conversions GDS Security
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 486
desc.semantic.java.code_correctness_byte_array_to_string_conversion
Abstract
Las solicitudes explícitas de recopilación de elementos no utilizados son un barómetro que indica la existencia de posible problemas de rendimiento.
Explanation
En algún momento de la carrera profesional del desarrollador de .NET, surge un problema para parece tan misterioso, impenetrable e inmune a la depuración que no queda otra opción que culpar al recopilador de elementos no utilizados. Sobre todo, cuando el error está relacionado con el tiempo y el estado, existe un indicio de prueba empírica que apoya esta teoría: la inserción de una llamada a GC.Collect() a menudo parece lograr que el problema desaparezca.

En casi todos los casos que hemos visto, la llamada a GC.Collect() es el método incorrecto. De hecho, llamar a GC.Collect() puede provocar problemas de rendimiento si se realiza con demasiada frecuencia.
References
[1] Scott Holden The perils of GC.Collect()
[2] Rico Mariani Performance Tidbits
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 664
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[33] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.structural.dotnet.code_correctness_call_to_gc_collect